There is a growing movement today to redefine the meaning of marriage and expand this term, which has always described the union of one man and one woman in that unique relationship which provides the basis of a human family, to include homosexual relationships. After all, shouldn’t we live and let live? Who, other than religious bigots or homophobes, would object to this redefinition of marriage?
Whether we are deeply religious or avowed atheists, “straight” or “gay”, our natural intelligence should warn us all to object. Changing laws and attitudes concerning marriage already indicate what the consequences of this politically motivated movement will be. Here are just a few instances:
· In August 2008, a gay woman won the “right” to an artificial insemination procedure despite the objection of her Christian fertility doctors when the Californian Supreme Court determined that her doctors have “neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption” that would allow them to follow their consciences.
· In Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business in 2006, after serving the public for over 100 years finding homes for orphaned and special needs children, because they refused to compromise their belief that children need both a father and a mother.
· Also in Massachusetts, parent David Parker was arrested, jailed, and banned from his child’s school for requesting the right to opt his kindergartener out of lessons on homosexuality.
It is no coincidence that these cases are first occurring in places where gay marriage has been recognized. In these instances, gay “rights” were victorious. But who are the losers? Doctors and religious agencies lose their freedom of conscience; parents lose their right to determine the best education for their children; and children lose their right to have both a mother and a father, although studies consistently show that the best environment for children is the traditional family with two biological parents (for links to research, visit the American College of Pediatricians website: www.acpeds.org).
If same-sex marriage becomes a civil right, who will be the next to lose their freedom of speech and conscience? We must recognize the destructive effects of redefining both marriage and civil rights. Sexual orientation is not the same as race, creed, or color. We have no civil right to view child pornography or to marry multiple partners because these acts are harmful to children and families – and to society. For the same reason, we must reject this radical redefinition of the family. The family is defined by nature – yes, men and women really do need each other. Although we are autonomous in many ways, when it comes to marriage and family, we complete each other in a unique and beautiful way that is literally life-giving. True marital love is not a matter of demanding rights, but of offering the gift of self to the other, and desiring the highest good for the beloved. From this gift of self, new life is conceived – a miracle that can never happen naturally in a same-sex union. Our children are our future. Desire the highest good for them.
Whether we are deeply religious or avowed atheists, “straight” or “gay”, our natural intelligence should warn us all to object. Changing laws and attitudes concerning marriage already indicate what the consequences of this politically motivated movement will be. Here are just a few instances:
· In August 2008, a gay woman won the “right” to an artificial insemination procedure despite the objection of her Christian fertility doctors when the Californian Supreme Court determined that her doctors have “neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption” that would allow them to follow their consciences.
· In Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business in 2006, after serving the public for over 100 years finding homes for orphaned and special needs children, because they refused to compromise their belief that children need both a father and a mother.
· Also in Massachusetts, parent David Parker was arrested, jailed, and banned from his child’s school for requesting the right to opt his kindergartener out of lessons on homosexuality.
It is no coincidence that these cases are first occurring in places where gay marriage has been recognized. In these instances, gay “rights” were victorious. But who are the losers? Doctors and religious agencies lose their freedom of conscience; parents lose their right to determine the best education for their children; and children lose their right to have both a mother and a father, although studies consistently show that the best environment for children is the traditional family with two biological parents (for links to research, visit the American College of Pediatricians website: www.acpeds.org).
If same-sex marriage becomes a civil right, who will be the next to lose their freedom of speech and conscience? We must recognize the destructive effects of redefining both marriage and civil rights. Sexual orientation is not the same as race, creed, or color. We have no civil right to view child pornography or to marry multiple partners because these acts are harmful to children and families – and to society. For the same reason, we must reject this radical redefinition of the family. The family is defined by nature – yes, men and women really do need each other. Although we are autonomous in many ways, when it comes to marriage and family, we complete each other in a unique and beautiful way that is literally life-giving. True marital love is not a matter of demanding rights, but of offering the gift of self to the other, and desiring the highest good for the beloved. From this gift of self, new life is conceived – a miracle that can never happen naturally in a same-sex union. Our children are our future. Desire the highest good for them.
Comments
Post a Comment