A lone comment on another blog has arisen my interest. Come listen in on a commenter who is expressing the kind of chagrin on this argument that I think many feel:
I totally agree with you, I do not think emotion should decide this issue. But that’s really all the anti-SSM group has to go on. They cannot defend their actions let alone exactly define marriage and explain why it needs to be defended. They do, occasionally, show their true colors which area group of people who wish to deny gays in this country equal rights.
Ah, now that is type of argument suited for an Opine discussion. Hello, commenter. Meet Opine Editorials, where we do what you say cannot be done.
Follow the "Read More" link to read the rest.
That same commenter left some distinct questions. I'll give my own answers, honed in decades of debate and never have they been refuted. (I've altered the question numbering).
- What is your definition of marriage
- [A]nd how does SSM “destroy it”.
- Why do you feel a need to “defend” marriage?
- If it is a good institution, won’t it stand on its own?
What is the definition of marriage? It is the legal union of a man and a woman. The effect SSM would have would be to neuters it in more ways than one. It removes the reference to gender from that definition -- the reference to equal gender representation in marriage, and I'll speak of the other a little later.
I feel a great need to defend marriage, and by that I mean specifically the equal expectation of both genders in each marriage. I feel that need because I believe in marriage equality, of course. Integrating both genders, and expecting their equal representation and participation is required for marriage equality. Don't let anyone fool you on that point.
The purpose of marriage is best served when we recognize that both genders play a crucial role, and their rights and responsibilities need to be equally recognized. And that is for the sake of a third party. A third party I'll mention a bit later, but it is the perspective of this third party which makes this make sense.
Marriage is a good institution. But it can only help people as much as they invest in it. Someone who opens up a bank account but doesn't put any money into it will never get a return. Someone who gets married but doesn't invest the love and tolerance of the other gender that it requires, will not get the return that we expect from marriage. The institution suffers marginally as fewer people make that investment, but the people who missed out on the opportunity suffer the most. And for the people who do not invest because they no longer recognize the institution for what it is, the institution is as good as destroyed.
But there is a third party which suffers. A third party who is entitled a number of rights which are only ensured where there is love and tolerance of both genders in marriage. And that third party is the children who are potentially created by a man and a woman.
When a child is created, their identity is not shared with just one person, but two. And an institution which promotes the equal love, tolerance, and devotion of the other gender -- specifically the person one created a child with -- is the best way to ensure that the child loves and recognizes their own identity. It is the most humanitarian cause in the world. It is the child who naturally identifies with the two people who created it, it is the two who created a child which identify with that child, and it is that bond of kinship which provides the best environment for that child.
In fact, even without the marriage institution, the two people are blood related through their children. Marriage simply recognizes the potential for such a bond for the sake of the children.
Thanks for reading. Please, share your thoughts in the comment section below.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment