Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Gay “Marriage” Harms Traditional Marriage
The “holy” and “fundamental”
What is “holy” matrimony? What is it that makes it so “holy”? I assume that to be “Holy” something most likely derives from a religious purview. So then, matrimony must be in line with our religious beliefs at some level. But even if we could widen the net and make a definition of marriage that is conciliatory with every religion, what about those people who have no religion? I hope we agree that the government cannot impress religious dogma or interfere with the religious reestablishment—but if an idea cannot be rationalized through anything other than religious, then it might as well be religious dogma, and therefore it cannot be imposed on the People. Would the Protestants be happy if Catholics prohibited meat on Lenten Fridays? What if Christians prohibited Muslim girls from wearing a headdress?
What exactly is the “fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female”? Now, I understand that the penis fits quite nicely into the vagina, and that copulation is usually effective for producing children. And I would not think it unreasonable that this is the product of evolution , or the hand of God. Yet, these design elements serve to carry on the human race—to say that man and woman should be together just because their genitals say they should is reading morality from an irrelevant biological function. Marriage is about love and happiness, and the only way the idea of gender complementariness could dictate marriage is if marriage was meant to produce children. I know some people believe that is a purpose to marriage, but this wouldn’t be America if the government dictated what kind of marriage even heterosexual people should have.
- The Monk
February 15, 2009 4:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.