Recent letters to the editor allege that support for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage in the eyes of the law is based on fear and bigotry, particularly religiously motivated bigotry.
However, a closer examination of the institution of marriage and the reason government recognizes it shows those claims are false.
Man and woman naturally complement each other physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. They were made to give themselves completely and fully to each other, for the two to become one. Marriage is merely one man and one woman making a complete and total gift of self to the other, for the rest of their earthly lives, and this is consummated in the act of sexual intercourse, which reflects and echoes this two becoming one in a physical way.
The two literally become "one flesh" and this one flesh union is the sole means by which human life is transmitted. This procreative capacity of marriage is the reason the government recognizes and bestows financial and legal benefits on it that are not bestowed on any other union. Those benefits are given to bind the husband and wife together, to bind the children to their mother and father, and to help the mother and father financially support their children, because children do best when they grow up in a stable home with their mother and father.
Recognizing marriage and endowing it with government benefits helps guarantee such an environment for children, and government has a compelling reason to do this in virtue of its responsibility to safeguard and promote the common good.
Government is justified in denying same-sex relationships as equivalent with marriage for the simple fact that same-sex sexual acts, such as sodomy and mutual masturbation, are inherently sterile and can never under any circumstances result in the transmission of human life.
Support for MN Marriage Amendment in Winona Daily News
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
We need to overcome and reject the language about "banning same sex marriage" and "denying same-sex relationships." No law, at least prior to the last ten years or so, did anything of the kind.
Laws simply recognized a specific human relationship, marriage. There are dozens or hundreds of other human relationships, some of which the law recognized, some of which it banned, most of which it said nothing about.
It is not bigotry to implicitly say, no, we don't particularly care to take notice of the bond between two men or two women.
While much of the language Badger uses COULD be applied by an advocate of same-sex marriage to their own type of couple, it remains true that men and women have an objective distinction, and are obviously complementary. The same cannot be said for the variants humans have sometimes indulged in.
Post a Comment