When I get into a conversation about the definition of marriage, I increasingly find myself being viewed as a bigot. That is fine; I have accepted that I'm probably not going to win the debate, but I can shed light on my beliefs and have others understand that it is not bigoted. Wondering what y'all thought of the following treatise.
I think that the marriage question might be explained as a difference of belief on what its social purpose is. Society has an interest in defining marriage as heterosexual and for the purpose of life, because it creates a legal bond between two people that have the natural capacity to create a new life in an action of love. When a child is born, it conveniently finds itself in a relationship that has publicly proclaimed its commitment for life (creating social stability around that fragile life). This definition does not discriminate against homosexuals nor rob them of their dignity.
Every person is unique and unrepeatable. If one relationship has the capacity to do something, which another type of relationship cannot, it is accurate to say they are not the same. Whenever possible, the state has an interest in keeping children with their biological parents. This can be done by defining marriage as heterosexual; as a lifelong commitment. This can also be done by saving sex for marriage (keeping children within the social stability of marriage) and expressing love in a self giving way in the marital embrace (a relationship that is focused on giving will probably stay together and be less messy).
Ben Dotzenrod
No comments:
Post a Comment