Marriage is what it is. Define it any other way and it is not. Those who want to experiment with a different kind of arrangement should come up with a new word. “Marriage” is already taken.
Marriage is defined by the One who created it. That would be God.
Marriage is time-honored for a reason. It benefits men, women, children and civilization itself.
Marriage, reasoned the Greeks, was upheld for the good of the state.
Proponents of homosexuality often point to ancient Greece as a culture that embraced men with men and women with women. But Robert R. Reilly, writing for MercatorNet (3-11-13), has helped me understand that the great classical philosophers would have regarded such pairings as destructive for society. Socrates and Plato condemned homosexual acts as “unnatural.” The notion that someone was a “homosexual” for life — or found his identity in this behavior — would have struck them as quite odd. The practice of sodomy was accepted between an adult male and a young boy, but only temporarily because the youth was expected to get married and start a family as soon as he reached maturity.
Plato called the act of men with men “contrary to nature” and “due to unbridled lust.” Socrates loathed sodomy, noting that it is the practice of one enslaved to his passions rather than one who seeks the good of others. “The lesson,” writes Reilly, “is clear. Once Eros is released from the bonds of family . . . passions can possess the soul. Giving in to them is a form of madness because erotic desire is not directed toward any end that can satisfy it. It is insatiable.”
“That which causes evil in the soul,” said Plato, will ultimately result in political disorder. Plato understood the unbridled practice of sodomy to cause such evil and, thus, bring chaos to a nation built on order and logic.
It is for this reason that Greek philosophers spoke of the virtues of chastity and procreation within marriage. Aristotle described man and woman together in family without which the rest of society cannot exist.
Reilly explains, “Without family, there are no villages, which are associations of families, and without villages, there is no polis. ‘Every state is [primarily] composed of households,’ Aristotle asserts. In other words, without households – meaning husbands and wives together in families – there is no state. In this sense, the family is the pre-political institution. The state does not make marriage possible; marriage makes the state possible. Homosexual marriage would have struck Aristotle as an absurdity since you could not found a polity on its necessarily sterile relations. This is why the state has a legitimate interest in marriage, because, without it, it has no future.”
The Greeks understood the importance of marriage which is, as they saw it, the pairing of male and female as husband and wife. With that in mind, Reilly explains, “then chastity becomes the indispensable political principle because it is the virtue which regulates and makes possible the family – the cornerstone unit of the polis. Without the practice of this virtue, the family becomes inconceivable. Without it, the family disintegrates.”
“Homosexual” marriage, to Aristotle, would have been a self-contradiction. Perhaps that is why the word “homosexuality” did not exist in Greek, or any other language, until the late 19th century. Why would it? Truth dictates that “homosexual” is an oxymoron.
Jesus is Truth. He is also Love and Life. He instituted the agape love of marriage so that life might abound. He mourns the consequences of sinful choices. He does not rejoice in the pain that comes from confusion and slavery to selfish passion. But, He is faithful to the repentant who call upon His name.
Sin deceives. It distorts the meaning of love and alters relationships. But, the wisdom of Truth prevails.
The Greeks might not have acknowledged the source of truth, but they saw the wisdom of it.
Appreciation to Robert R. Reilly, MercatorNet, 3-11-2013
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Bizarre Values Are Not Human Rights
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Citizenship, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Identity, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged " homosexuality, discrimination, family, human rights, marriage, Robert R. Reilly, sodomy, tolerance, U.S. foreign policy on January 7, 2015| Leave a Comment »
LGBT activists here in the U.S. push hard for cultural acceptance of sodomy in schools, courts, churches, and the military. We are labeled “intolerant” if we speak God’s Word that calls the act of homosexuality a sin. We are labeled “homophobic” or even “hostile” if we voice concern for children, family, and the survival of a thriving society.
U.S. Embassies across the world—in Pakistan, Kenya, Laos, and Prague—have been instructed by the Obama Administration to legitimize sodomy and promote same-sex marriage. U.S. foreign policy seeks to change the laws of other countries, but there is resistance from nations where homosexual acts are illegal.
Reilly explains, “When the acting ambassador in El Salvador, Mari Carmen Aponte, wrote an op-ed in a major Salvadoran newspaper, La Prensa Grafica, implying that the disapproval of homosexual behavior is animated by ‘brutal hostility’ and ‘aggression’ by ‘those who promote hatred,’ a group of pro-family associations fought back. On July 6, 2011, they wrote:
As for me? I stand with the pro-family groups of El Salvador. I pray that I will fear, love, and trust God so that I might love my neighbor without accepting evil as good. Does this mean that I will be called to discriminate? Isn’t discrimination bad? No. As Reilly brilliantly writes, “The ability to discriminate is, of course, essential to the ability to choose correctly.”
It is not too late to choose correctly. Bizarre values are not “human rights.” Inspired by my neighbors in El Salvador, I will persevere for marriage and family.
Making Gay Okay by Robert R. Reilly,
p. 203, 214
Read Full Post »