Saving the Name
I’m not going to lie, but the current laws in comparison of straight and homosexual marriage do discriminate against homosexuals. The federal law doesn’t provide the same legal benefits for homosexual civil unions as the laws constituted for marriage, which is unfair. We live in a free country, with free will in a place where people are able to choose the lifestyles they want (within reason). However, forcing people to change what they have chosen to define as the institution of marriage is also unfair. By allowing homosexuals under the umbrella of what defines marriage it destroys what originally constituted the idea. The word marriage is powerful, the meaning itself is powerful and homosexuals know that and want to share the name. But this is simply not doable when we consider what defines marriage for two reasons: firstly, no matter how much we try to separate it, marriage is tied to morals, and secondly, we can’t ignore human design.
The idea of marriage is a moral understanding that is universal across the planet. If you were to ask anyone, what marriage was, more than likely, they would tell you that it is the union between man and a woman. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been considered to be between a man and a woman, a moral concept that has been heavily rooted in most religions. When you mess with moral aspect attached to the idea of marriage, you also are messing with religions, because where do most morals come from? Religion. Writer, Jay Homnick, explains in one of his articles for The American Spectator, that while homosexuality was still prominent in ancient cultures, they didn’t disturb the basis for what defined marriage and it’s principles out of respect for other religions. But now, the respect for what other religions regard as marriage is no longer prevalent and religions are desperately fighting to save the name of marriage. Changing what defines marriage diminishes the character and beauty of marriage, weakening its meaning.
So not only is marriage intricate because of the value it holds but also because of it’s unique design. All across the board, religious and even non-religious people have regarded marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Why? Think about it, man and women were both two halves of one whole, uniquely designed, unable to procreate apart from each other. Marriage signifies that coming together, the unification between the two sexes, thus with the purpose to begin a family and carry on a legacy. Homnick also explains that…
“…the institution of marriage is not an invention of the Bible; rather, it is an essential component of the human condition. Man and woman discover each other and merge into their natural unit. They become “as one flesh” with the birth of a child, the fusion of their identities culminating in a new human life astonishingly incorporating the passion of each into an original life force.”
When you let gays enter the picture, it changes the outlook of what originally defined marriage. You have two people of the same sex, clearly unable to procreate, thus losing that sense of that true unification, skewing the perception and purpose of marriage.
It is unfair for homosexuals to advance legal benefits for their relationships at the cost of someone’s values. And their argument stating that is doesn’t change the definition of marriage is a falsehood when you consider morals marriage was founded on and human design.
