Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Search the Remnant Newspaper
Thursday, July 23, 2015

Ever Wonder Why Gmarriage Is Only Legal in Post Christian Nations?

By:   Matt Briggs
Rate this item
(18 votes)
Ever Wonder Why Gmarriage Is Only Legal in Post Christian Nations?

Have you noticed that gmarriage—government-defined marriage—is legal only in post-Christian nations? Why this is so in a moment, but first a brief review of where we stand.

The Netherlands were the first to pretend that two men (or two women) can be married, making it the law of the land in 2001. Belgium followed close at heel in 2003, with the flight from reality gaining momentum in 2005 with Canada and Spain. As of this writing, there are twenty-four countries mandating gmarriage, with Finland, Ireland, Mexico, and the United States the latest entries.

Several other countries are teetering, like Switzerland, Colombia, and Germany, and there is even growing support in traditionally non-Christian nations, like Taiwan and Thailand, but so far this is only tepid to modest.


There are some nations that outright ban gmarriage. Japan defines marriage correctly in its constitution. Russia not only holds to marriage, but even forbids same-sex propaganda. Poland and Eastern Europe remain on the side of Truth. No predominantly Muslim country even whispers about gmarriage, except for Turkey, where a minority agitates to become more worldly. China and those nations under its wing, perhaps because of lingering ties to Confucianism and its stress on family, holds strong. Except for South Africa, the African continent remains sane.

Now, each of the countries that have so far adopted gmarriage did so for a reason, and each used to be, at one point in their past, predominantly Christian. Not only in the profession of the religion, but in adherence to and belief in its major tenets—of course, taking in consideration the disputes between the various protesting sects, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. That these nations no longer adhere to Christianity is obvious.

The Netherlands has only about 42 to 45% of folks identifying as Christian. Yet only 17% are actual believers in the notion of a personal God, and this includes Muslims (about 5%) and Jews (less than 1%). That makes about 12% faithful Christians. A whopping 25% proclaim atheism, 31% are agnostic, and 27% are “spiritual”.

Belgium is somewhat similar, though it started as predominantly Catholic: 57% of the populace claim Catholicism, although weekly mass attendance is only around 5%. As of 2010, about 27% were atheists. Canada, too, is similar, with about 24% proclaiming no religion.

These once United States has about 22% or so people who count themselves as “unaffiliated”, which includes atheists, agnostics, and “spiritual.” All gmarriage countries have significant and growing proportions of people who are no longer Christian.

Importantly, though no formal survey exists, there is little doubt that theleadership in all the countries with legal gmarriage is post-Christian. It is not coincidental, for instance, that those sects farthest from the core, but still clinging to the edges, like Unitarian Universalists, debate what it means to be post-Christian.

Now, post-Christian is different than never- or non-Christian. China was never Christian, and indeed was militantly and officially atheist for over half a century, yet gmarriage is not legal there while it is here. Roughly—a book could be written on the topic—to be post-Christian is to retain some of the trappings and attitudes of Christianity while abandoning the “hard sayings” of our Lord and corrupting other teachings.

One corruption, malignant and pervasive, is egalitarianism. Egalitarianism emerged from Christianity from the truth that all are equal in dignity and in need of salvation to become all are equal in everything which became all should be made equal. The so-called Enlightenment created the belief society would “progress” towards greater “equality”, and where it doesn’t, it must be helped along by force.

Gmarriage proponents call it “marriage equality”. Equal with what? If we have to be told gmarriage is equal to marriage, it’s only because everybody knows it’s not. If that doesn’t make sense, think of it this way. Women are said to be “equal to” men, although everybody knows they’re not. If they were, then we wouldn’t know how to separate the sexes. We wouldn’t even have words for “woman” and “man.” It is only because everybody knows that the nature of men and women are different that we are able to insist (falsely) they are the same.

Everywhere equality is invoked desire trumps truth. Indeed, it could be said that desire for equality was the first sin. “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Equality leads to the belief that everybody’s interpretation of the Bible is “valid”, that everybody can be their own priest, that all “paths” to God lead to the same destination, that being “spiritual” is the same as being religious. The parable of the talents is turned on its head: people don’t have varying God-given gifts and strengths, but all must have equality of opportunity. And, eventually, of outcome. How unequal it is that some will be condemned!

Equality must erase all natural distinctions and hierarchies. So far, it’s doing a terrific job.

To help The Remnant take on great new writers like this, please support the effort:

[Comment Guidelines - Click to view]
Last modified on Thursday, July 23, 2015