Letter: URI student stresses the historical, social, religious values of marriage
Issue date: 11/20/07 Section: Editorial/Opinion
Surely, two bisexual women who love each other and also a common male partner should be allowed to wed? Surely the three of them together could provide a loving, caring environment for children? Surely, the three should be allowed to share each others' worldly possessions and be entitled to all the same benefits that "normal" hetero and homosexual couples enjoy?
Surely, by not recognizing the "love" and "validity" of such an arrangement, the government would be unfairly discriminating against these people?
Worse still (or maybe not worse in the eyes of the far left), what if an uncle wants to marry his niece? What if a doctor testifies that the two are genetically different enough to safely conceive? Does that make it OK? If they "love" each other and they can provide a loving, caring household, shouldn't that be enough? Who are we to "discriminate" against such an arrangement?
Perhaps Mormons in Utah should be allowed to live the way they choose, instead of being ridiculed by the rest of the country as "freaks" and "criminals" simply because they seek to live a little bit differently than the rest of us?
But you don't see the far left encouraging Mormons in Utah to "come out" of the proverbial closet. If any of these "civil unions" (including gay marriage) were allowed to transpire in the name of "freedom from discrimination," these counterfeit, ridiculous ideas would certainly create a breakdown of the sanctity of marriage, at best, or a complete breakdown of society as we know it, at worst.
History, social science, anthropology, religion, theology and nature itself all support the traditional definition of marriage. The traditional family structure is at the forefront of American societal concerns, and the threat of such preposterous unions as to include any different combination of gender or number of partners legally allowed to wed can only lead to the further deterioration of the family values system.
The left has had no substantial argument for being pro-gay marriage, except for the points I have recently heard at the debate. These points include that gay marriage is a modern civil rights fight, and the definition of marriage itself should be eradicated. Neither point is valid in any way, shape or form.
Surely, by not recognizing the "love" and "validity" of such an arrangement, the government would be unfairly discriminating against these people?
Worse still (or maybe not worse in the eyes of the far left), what if an uncle wants to marry his niece? What if a doctor testifies that the two are genetically different enough to safely conceive? Does that make it OK? If they "love" each other and they can provide a loving, caring household, shouldn't that be enough? Who are we to "discriminate" against such an arrangement?
Perhaps Mormons in Utah should be allowed to live the way they choose, instead of being ridiculed by the rest of the country as "freaks" and "criminals" simply because they seek to live a little bit differently than the rest of us?
But you don't see the far left encouraging Mormons in Utah to "come out" of the proverbial closet. If any of these "civil unions" (including gay marriage) were allowed to transpire in the name of "freedom from discrimination," these counterfeit, ridiculous ideas would certainly create a breakdown of the sanctity of marriage, at best, or a complete breakdown of society as we know it, at worst.
History, social science, anthropology, religion, theology and nature itself all support the traditional definition of marriage. The traditional family structure is at the forefront of American societal concerns, and the threat of such preposterous unions as to include any different combination of gender or number of partners legally allowed to wed can only lead to the further deterioration of the family values system.
The left has had no substantial argument for being pro-gay marriage, except for the points I have recently heard at the debate. These points include that gay marriage is a modern civil rights fight, and the definition of marriage itself should be eradicated. Neither point is valid in any way, shape or form.