Politics from a Montana woman's point of view.
Traditional marriage between one man and one woman go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents the inherently reproductive human relationship. Society needs such an institution because culture marks us as human. Religion is an important force in the foundation of culture by finding shared values. Secular society makes it more difficult to find consensus on values. Extending marriage to include same-sex couples would seriously harm all of these societal level functions of the institution of marriage. Same-sex advocates argue that the primary purpose of marriage is to give recognition to an intimate relationship between two people. What if the two people are father and son? Or sister and sister? Multiple persons? Will they seek a union of ‘traditional marriage”? I am as passionate about love as you are. Marriage is about a man and woman. Same sex relationships can have civil unions and are and can recognized as couples. You want to change society with the love you talk about. Traditional marriages should remain as one man and one woman. By nature, that is precisely what 'traditional' marriage is. Changing marriage definition will open the door to more self-directed intimate unions. What if father and son 'love each other' and want to be married? Or sister and sister. This door should not be opened.
Marriage is a legal status first, a recognized relationship by the government. The ceremonies can be performed in any number of churches, or ways. But in order to be married by the church, you first have to have the license from the government.
The problem is that Keith doesn't mention that he is in law school which seems to be part of most/all of your posts.... that makes it hard....
Post a Comment