Into the Wardrobe

I had to re-read that selection from Lewis' writings before posting in depth. Now I think the Washington Post took him completely out context. I think Lewis' ideas about marriage, secular or not, was focused on heterosexual marriage.

If Lewis had addressed this issue, I also think he would have considered more than the mere sexuality of the marriage. He would have asked the question, "Would they want to be able to adopt children?" then the whole issue of a homosexual family would be brought in. Can 2 moms or 2 dads produce a healthy, stable person with accurate ideas regarding feminimity, masculinity, or even sexuality in general?

Of course, Christians believe 2 things. 1. homosexuality is sin. 2. Sin is never satisfied.

If we were the government were to grant homosexuals the right to secular marriage, then it would be only a matter of time before a group would feel cheated because they were not married in a religious context and demand that any church they choose would have to recognise their marriage. This is the my primary motivating factor that makes me against homosexual marriage.

Greetings Wardrobians,

The problem here is that we miss the point. We all have the same right to marry, even homosexuals do. They have not been deprived of any right. You can marry a person of the opposite sex. You see? That is the definition of marriage. That is what it is, those are the rules. One man, one woman.

The issue that you guys are talking about "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with it. It just so happens that as is often the case, the way God says is best, is.

You can't "drink" unless you are of a certain age in law. You can't be President or Senator unless you are of a certain age... etc. We "impose" rules in order to receive some benefits and that is perfectly legitimate. I know some of you might say, "yes, but anyone can be President once they reach that age." Well, that's precisely the point. Any one can marry (no matter what your sexual orientation is) as long as they follow the rules. One man, one woman.

It is perfectly legitimate for a society to offer benefits to encourage some type of positive behavior. It is understandable that we would want to promote what has been shown to be "healthier," for men, women and children; for marriage to be one man and one woman.

And let me make quick point here. Remember that we know that marriage between a man and a woman is best, not only because God says so (which would be the basis for Christians) but because we have gone the other route and we have seen the fallout. I don't know why but some people think this is "progressive" or something. We are actually going as far back as "Sodom" and many other civilizations (i.e. Greece) that have embraced this type of deviant behavior and have paid the price. We are going backwards, not forwards.

"Peoples of the world", don't be confused by today's rhetoric. There is no discrimination against homosexuals in this case. It is not like being black. I know of no "ex-black;" but I do know several ex-homosexuals. Why don't we allow for multiple partners, however many people want to enter into a marriage? I know of many, "men" in particular, who say that they cannot be with just one woman. They say that "they are born that way" that's their nature. So would that be prudent, to allow for this because they are born that way? How about to marry an 8 year old? Why not?

I know they would say it's different, but it is not. Now, I'm not saying we can't do it. In a democracy it would be perfectly legitimate for a society to allow for all sorts of things if they want to. But that society would decay rapidly. If you have any doubt, look at history.

Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape