6.23.2009

Phony Matrimony

Oh, and this one too, sent to me by a fellow quiverfiller:

Phony Matrimony


Here is an quote from it:

Christopher Oleson in Jan./Feb. issue of
Touchstone mag,:
”…Our society has preserved the label ’marriage’ while having
lost all living contact with what that word originally and
essentially signified. When a modern American couple, oblivious as
they are to the procreative and indissoluble nature of the marital
covenant, goes to the altar or courthouse and commits to living
together for life, they are not actually getting married in the
original sense of that word. They are entering into a contractually
formalized ’couplehood’.
What passes for marriage in the Western world these days, both in
terms of our cultural sensibilities as well as in law, is what I
described above, namely, two people who are really crazy about each
other and want to be a ’couple’ for life. Typically, this vision is
not repudiated even by more conservative Americans with ’traditional
values’.
The problem with this ’conservative’ acceptance of marriage as
contractual couplehood is that two men or two women can also fit
this description.”
Thus, even the church has vacated most of its argument against gay
marriage.

2 comments:

Family Man said...

Bryce Christensen, writing for The Howard Center's The Family in America, reached a similar conclusion back in April 2004: "The mockery of wedlock began decades ago when hundreds of thousands of heterosexual DINK [double-income, no kids] couples started buying basset hounds rather than bassinettes, started indulging in extramarital affairs, and started fulfilling divorce attorneys’ dreams of avarice."

He quotes another source suggesting, "Gay marriage is ... worth opposing not as an end in itself .. but [only] as the first step toward the rolling back of the progressive delegitimization of marriage that has occurred in the past few decades."

The shift from procreation to contraception has certainly helped the same-sex "marriage" movement, as I noted in this earlier post. Whether a return from contraception back to procreation would reverse the tide is, of course, a bigger question.

GL said...

Whether the movement to recognize same-sex "marriage" (or pseudogamy as Tony Esolen, over at Mere Comments calls it) advances or is repelled is of less importance than whether Christians regain a proper understanding of Christian marriage. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer includes in its Rite of Matrimony the following:

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

Whatever the laws of our land may recognize, Christians must return to a Christian understanding of marriage. Our obedience to God is our first priority. Our disobedience has brought us to the current sad state of affairs. We, much more than any gay rights group, are responsible for the sad state of marriage in our society and we must first confess our sins and repent of them before we have any standing to correct the wider sins of the nonbelievers around us. See Matthew 5:1-7.

Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.