2008 Woodie Awards
Letter: URI student stresses the historical, social, religious values of marriage
Issue date: 11/20/07 Section: Editorial/Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
11/20/07 - To the Cigar,
Marriage is a vital aspect of every human society and has been for 3,000 years. This union has always been considered to be a holy, sacred union ordained by God.
Two of the most important aspects of marriage are love and procreation. However, during the current inner conflict of our great country, the sanctity of marriage has come under attack by mostly far left factions fighting to redefine and create an entirely new entity of marriage. This is wrong on so many levels, mainly because the idea of gay marriage is based upon different principles than natural, heterosexual marriage.
Remember also that heterosexual, monogamous union is the only type of marriage recognized by all five major religions of the world. Instead of factors such as love and procreation, gay marriage would be based largely upon adult desires and choices, both sexual and idealistic. I believe, and would never think anything other than the fact, that homosexuals should be respected and should certainly never be discriminated against.
However, many claim that it would be discrimination not to allow this community to marry, given they are not allowed the civil rights that heterosexual marriages enjoy. These include the so-called 1,138 protections that are enacted when two persons are wed. This cannot be discrimination due to the fact that not all extreme adult fetishes can be condoned.
As I stated in the debate this week, allowing gay marriage now could lead to other groups claiming they have the same rights to wed in the future. Since the far left obviously seems to want to change, undermine, and eradicate the definition of marriage, what do they propose it to be? Anyone who loves each other? Any one person can marry any other? Who are these people to feel they have the right to change the definition of marriage, a human institution and tradition that has been around since the days of Adam and Eve.
Now I realize that the slippery-slope argument is largely invalid and unacceptable in our "enlightened" state of philosophy. But that being said, if this new "version" of marriage is enacted, who is to say that someday in the not-too-distant future, the far left won't be at the doors to the halls of government asking the state to "recognize" bisexual familial arrangements?
Marriage is a vital aspect of every human society and has been for 3,000 years. This union has always been considered to be a holy, sacred union ordained by God.
Two of the most important aspects of marriage are love and procreation. However, during the current inner conflict of our great country, the sanctity of marriage has come under attack by mostly far left factions fighting to redefine and create an entirely new entity of marriage. This is wrong on so many levels, mainly because the idea of gay marriage is based upon different principles than natural, heterosexual marriage.
Remember also that heterosexual, monogamous union is the only type of marriage recognized by all five major religions of the world. Instead of factors such as love and procreation, gay marriage would be based largely upon adult desires and choices, both sexual and idealistic. I believe, and would never think anything other than the fact, that homosexuals should be respected and should certainly never be discriminated against.
However, many claim that it would be discrimination not to allow this community to marry, given they are not allowed the civil rights that heterosexual marriages enjoy. These include the so-called 1,138 protections that are enacted when two persons are wed. This cannot be discrimination due to the fact that not all extreme adult fetishes can be condoned.
As I stated in the debate this week, allowing gay marriage now could lead to other groups claiming they have the same rights to wed in the future. Since the far left obviously seems to want to change, undermine, and eradicate the definition of marriage, what do they propose it to be? Anyone who loves each other? Any one person can marry any other? Who are these people to feel they have the right to change the definition of marriage, a human institution and tradition that has been around since the days of Adam and Eve.
Now I realize that the slippery-slope argument is largely invalid and unacceptable in our "enlightened" state of philosophy. But that being said, if this new "version" of marriage is enacted, who is to say that someday in the not-too-distant future, the far left won't be at the doors to the halls of government asking the state to "recognize" bisexual familial arrangements?