By definition, many objects can be "married", that is joined together. Even when used in that sense, the things "married" are different from each other. Things which are the same cannot be "married" but when combined, become more of the same. When used in that context, it is understood that it is not the same as the marriage between a man and woman. The union of two people in a relationship other than the traditional understanding of what constitutes a "marriage", cannot be considered the same just as any other union not composed of a man and a woman cannot be considered equal and identical to it.
It should be apparent to anyone with a simple understanding of anatomy and biology, whether directed by a Creator or some accidental happening, that the difference between the sexes and the roles each play, is a mechanism for propagation of the species and that the sexual act is primarily intended to produce offspring. When it does not, in a traditional marriage, the act is still legitimate because it is driven by the same natural instincts. When the act or acts are not able to produce offspring when anatomically it is not possible, they must be considered unnatural. How, then, can two sets of circumstances, one natural and the other not, be equated?
Anyone is free to engage life anyway that pleases them but changing definitions is not allowed to satisfy some guilt for those who want to legitimize their relationship. If I have a pound of lead and want it to be a pound of gold, I can't say that it is, just to enhance my wealth. You would think I am crazy. No matter how much I desire it, lead will never become gold, even if they pass a law that says it is.
Those who can't accept reality have to manufacture a fantasy to be happy. The alternative, to avoid living in a fantasy, is to accept some kind of legal relationship which provides the legal benefits of marriage but does not pretend to be one. Not all, but many, in this situation are as determined to undermine traditional values as they are to be "married".
What do you think, or do you?
It should be apparent to anyone with a simple understanding of anatomy and biology, whether directed by a Creator or some accidental happening, that the difference between the sexes and the roles each play, is a mechanism for propagation of the species and that the sexual act is primarily intended to produce offspring. When it does not, in a traditional marriage, the act is still legitimate because it is driven by the same natural instincts. When the act or acts are not able to produce offspring when anatomically it is not possible, they must be considered unnatural. How, then, can two sets of circumstances, one natural and the other not, be equated?
Anyone is free to engage life anyway that pleases them but changing definitions is not allowed to satisfy some guilt for those who want to legitimize their relationship. If I have a pound of lead and want it to be a pound of gold, I can't say that it is, just to enhance my wealth. You would think I am crazy. No matter how much I desire it, lead will never become gold, even if they pass a law that says it is.
Those who can't accept reality have to manufacture a fantasy to be happy. The alternative, to avoid living in a fantasy, is to accept some kind of legal relationship which provides the legal benefits of marriage but does not pretend to be one. Not all, but many, in this situation are as determined to undermine traditional values as they are to be "married".
What do you think, or do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment