|
Printable
Version (PDF 17 KB)
Pondering the “Same-Sex Marriage” Controversy
Radically different premises usually incite
controversy. For example, proponents of “same-sex marriage” view
marriage as a civil right; “I should be free to marry the person of my
choice.” That perspective makes perfect sense if the purpose of “marriage”
is simply to bestow certain social and legal privileges on a couple’s
intimate relationship. By contrast, proponents of traditional marriage
have a viewpoint that is rooted in reverence for marriage as license to
conceive children. They expect that husband and wife will welcome the
offspring of their conjugal embrace, create a family to provide for their
children, and rear their posterity into healthy, productive members of
society.
Today’s widespread erotic pollution affects
public acceptance of promiscuity. It perverts sexual activity into nothing
more than recreational pleasure for couples. It that context, homosexuality
is just an alternative “couple’s” preference. Technology also affects
the inclination toward fornication. Pills enhance sexual performance.
Contraception neutralizes the gametes involved. Abortion clinics deal with
the accident of pregnancy. On the other hand, technology also gives
infertile married couples new hope for children through fertility drugs,
in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and embryo implantation.
These fertility technologies can also be exploited by single persons if they
use donor gametes, so it is not surprising that this turbulent mix of erotic
pollution and reproductive technologies could warp perspectives about the
definition of marriage and even question the necessity of marriage.
There is something uniquely holy about a newborn
snuggled securely to its mother’s breast while being enveloped by its
father’s protective embrace. This new family unit received its legitimate
right to produce new human life when the bride and groom were granted their
marriage license. The “gold standard” for marriage includes total chastity
of the man and the woman before marriage and total fidelity in marriage as
they care for the offspring of their sexual union. Even though some parents
may fall short of the “gold standard” in marriage, their commitment to
develop and maintain a stable, loving home for their offspring is true to
the essentials of marriage. However, “same-sex marriage” is counterfeit
marriage. It diverts marriage away from human reproduction and offspring
protection into couple’s gratification.
New human life deserves protection. The first
and best protection comes from the baby’s biological parents and the family
created by their marriage. Alternatively, government can issue foster care
licenses to empathetic adults who care for children who are not protected by
their parents. Foster care and adoptions can have happy outcomes for
dispossessed children, but much anguish could be avoided if the child never
experienced parental irresponsibility in the first place. Our society will
do well to applaud all who, by their charitable outreach and human
care-giving, bless the lives of those who are drawn into their sphere of
influence. This especially applies to child care and the families who
nurture our next generation.
J. Wanless Southwick
January 27, 2009
[Top] [Back]
[Home]
|
