Traditionally marriage has been the union of one man and one woman with the purpose of bringing the next generation into the world and raising them in the best possible environment. Only in the last couple hundred years has mutual attraction been the driving force for a marriage. Before that it was often arranged for financial, political, or whatever reasons the father saw fit. Even when limited to one man and multiple women as some cultures continue to favor, it remains within natural law for the procreation of children.
Biologically two people of the same sex cannot produce a baby. A GLBT couple seeking pregnancy must involve at least one other party of the opposite sex. If that person is not invited into the bedroom, there are doctors involved, quite possibly creating multiple innocent lives to be discarded in order to achieve a singleton pregnancy.
This should not preclude a heterosexual couple with diminished fertility from marriage. While the chances are slim, there is still the possibility of conception. It’s sad that women are willing to pump their bodies full of Class I carcinogens in order to avoid pregnancy when the knowledge of modern natural fertility awareness and some prudent abstinence is just as effective when there is need to avoid conception.
Scientific studies have shown that children do best in a low-conflict heterosexual environment. The affection and example set by men differs from that of women. Children need those complementary styles in order to become the best self they can be. True, many children can overcome the challenges of being denied a mother and/or father, but ask anyone who has faced that challenge and they will tell you they missed their absent parent.
If a GLBT couple is allowed to “marry,” that changes the definition of marriage to that of “two consenting adults.” This is not to stand alongside traditional marriage but to replace it. In states where this has been allowed to happen by activist judges and politicians, there are now lawsuits against those who exercise their freedom of conscience and refuse to participate. If activists can sue innkeepers and photographers, how long before they sue a church for abiding by its religious teachings? The First Amendment was not meant to limit religious expression in the public square, as some would have us believe. By limiting religious expression, atheism becomes the official religion of the land.
There are no laws that prohibit a GLBT couple from being together. In addition, all the protections provided to a married couple can be sought through other means. Let them have their civil union, but don’t redefine my independently life-giving marriage. — Alexis Middleton, Zimmerman