Commentary
Why the definition of marriage matters
By B. Gehling
B. Gehling, Plymouth, is a physical therapist and a source in MPR News' Public Insight Network. He and his wife are expecting their first child in October.
Marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman. Now there are revisionists who argue that marriage needs to be redefined.
Revisionists argue that the definition of marriage — as being lived faithfully, permanently and exclusively between one man and one woman, and open to the raising of children — now has reason to change. I see no reason. On the contrary, I see numerous reasons to amend the Constitution to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
My personal experience deeply affects my opinion on the proposed amendment. I grew up on a farm in southeastern Minnesota. If I was not in school or playing basketball, you would have found me doing livestock chores, hauling grain, baling hay or plowing the field.
I shared in this labor with my family, but most closely with my father, who was my role model. In fact, I was fortunate to spend a good amount of time with both parents on a daily basis. I was also raised Roman Catholic and willingly attended Mass every Sunday with my entire family. But none of these facts was as crucial to my development as this one: the marriage of my father and mother.
My biological parents lived and continue to live their marriage. Their marriage has had no purpose but to freely, permanently and exclusively give themselves to one another in love. For my parents, this mutual giving resulted in a tight unity for them, and they were gifted with three children. They love my brother, my sister and me as a natural extension of their love for one another.
Since my parents live a true marriage, my childhood and adulthood have been exceptional. Every unique marriage lived between a man and woman for the purpose of love, growth in holiness and openness to the potential of children is exceptional because true marriage, as God created it, is exceptional.
One does not need to be Catholic, or follow any religion whatsoever, to understand why true marriage is, and always has been, between one man and one woman for the good of children and thus the whole of society. What is marriage, objectively speaking? My response will particularly keep in mind children. Children are most at risk if not protected by marriage and are the very hope of a stable and thriving society in the future.
It is through bodily union, a complete giving of one's self, that marriage is established permanently and exclusively. True marriage is a free, total, faithful and fruitful giving of one to another, and this must necessarily include the body. Not only does a married couple share a union of hearts and minds that must not be broken, but the couple gives something unique to one another, something that no other friendship or relationship can give — their very bodies.
True union from a natural and biological perspective can only occur between one man and one woman. Thus marriage, defined from this perspective, can be nothing other than shared between one man and one woman.
We have to remember that what we are voting on is a definition of marriage that is objective. No one person is entitled to everything. A person may not have the absolute right to marry if the definition of marriage does not fit his or her situation, just as, for example, a man does not have a right to enter a woman's restroom even if he feels more comfortable to do so, because the woman's bathroom is defined and understood as for woman only, ultimately for the stability of society.
Let's look at the issue from another perspective — through the eyes of a child. After all, marriage is not only about true union of minds, hearts and bodies, but also is open to the possibility of children.
I love my parents — both of my parents. There is a place deep in my heart reserved for both my mother and my father. The presence of both of my parents was crucial to my development, as I related to each of them differently — my mother as tender, merciful and caring, and my father as an example to help me form my own identity as a man.
We all know that not every child is lucky enough to grow up with both Mom and Dad, for various reasons. This is indeed unfortunate, but not a logical reason for redefining marriage.
According to the Ruth Institute, on average, children from stepparent households have more emotional problems and worse school performance than children who live with their biological parents. The stepparent may also exclude himself or herself from discipline, as the dynamics can be complicated in the family. Loyalties between child and spouse can be more complicated in a stepparent household, whereas in biologically intact families, loving the child is an extension of loving the spouse.
Because the father has a unique role in his daughter's life, teenage girls without fathers are at greater risk for early sexual activity, multiple sex partners, sexually transmitted diseases and out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Teenage boys without fathers are more at risk for violent behavior, criminal activity and incarceration. The list goes on and on.
If marriage is redefined, fatherhood becomes no longer essential or even important. When marriage is no longer exceptional, the costs are high, and the children pay the price.
The implications of not accepting the marriage amendment would affect everyone legally and possibly result in a further loss of basic constitutional freedoms. The true definition of marriage, as it has always been implied, would be changed. Since the state has now given us the choice to define marriage as it is already understood, it is our duty and privilege as citizens to vote yes for the amendment.
Make no mistake: A traditional marriage cannot stand side by side with a "same-sex marriage," because the new definition would make no distinction of sex. Traditional marriage would be replaced by other state definitions, and thus the implied traditional marriage definition would be eliminated forever. The new definition would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage. Any citizen, business or religious organization whose own beliefs disagreed with the new definition of marriage would face legal consequences, and a loss of our freedom of speech and religion would result.
None of my comments are directed toward homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. Homosexuality and the marriage amendment are two very different things. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but rather a statement of objective truths for the defense of the definition of marriage as it has always been understood. That definition now needs to be upheld by our "yes" vote.
Comments (42)
I am also a heterosexual raised in a Roman Catholic family. Your comments about heteroexual marriage between loving couples devoted to family and raising children can just as correctly be applied to homosexual couples, with the exception of being able to procreate. However, your assertain that "Marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman" is based on what? The Bible? The Catechism? Certainly, homosexuals have been around since the dawn of humanity and, as such, homosexuals have been coupling, if not actually marrying for time immemorial. It is fine for churches to define marriage however they prefer and even ban same sex marriage if that is their belief. But governments are based on rights and I am wondering where in any law - prior to the Defense of Marriage Act - where marriage has been defined as exclusively between one man and one woman. To my knowledge, the U.S. Constitution does not. Our government is secular, not religious. Therefore, if the U.S. is to afford equal rights to all its citizens, gay couples should be allowed to marry, just as mixed race couples who were once denied that right. The Catholic Church has the right to ban same sex marriage but the U.S. Government does not.
This commentary is direct from an echo chamber. It makes claims that are unsupported or just plain incorrect, it confuses cause and effect, and the emphasis on objectivity is laughable. Had homosexuals been allowed to get married back when the author was growing up, it would not affect his fantastic upbringing with his exceptional parents. Other than some bogus superstitious retribution fantasy, allowing homosexual marriage will have no effect on the marriages of heterosexuals. And just because he believes that children should be raised by a father and mother doesn't mean that the logical extension of that is that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. The children that have fathers and mothers will be taken care of fathers and mothers, but outlawing same sex marriage will do nothing to help those children who do not have fathers and mothers to raise them. Fortunately, anyone with an independent thought in their mind will see straight through the author's arguments. We don't need to enshrine discrimination in the constitution.
"No one person is entitled to everything."
Funny that this comment always comes from the people who have the most: Heterosexual, usually white, men.
If the objectivity of marriage is personal procreation as the author states, then we need to limit marriage to only those who can definitively produce children. If your sterile or too old your out....all sarcasm intended!
The author should be more forthright about his fully implied definition of marriage he'd like enshrined in our state constitution: an exclusive and permanent joining of one man to an obedient woman which must produce children. His own catholic church redefined that away long ago.
"Marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman."
You lost me at the first sentence. Marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman? I'm Jewish, so I've read all of MY Bible, and I assure you that marriage, as defined in the Torah, expounded on in the Mishna, and discussed in the Talmud, was defined as between one man and many women--- the Talmud has a whole discussion where the rabbis argue whether a man should be limited to 4, 12, 24, or 48 wives. It was not until 1000 CE that Rabbi Gershom ben Yehuda made a takana (decree) outlawing polygamy and REDEFINING marriage as between a man and ONE woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_ben_Judah#Synod_and_bans).
Also, in Jewish law, beginning in the Torah, marriage was and continues to be defined as a contract that can be broken through divorce. Then Jesus came along and REDEFINED it as a contract that lasts FOREVER. Then Protestants came along and RE-REDEFINED it to reinstate divorce, although Catholicism still prohibits divorce.
So don't give me this BS that "marriage has always been understood as such and such" and "marriage has never been redefined". IT HAS. Get over it.
What a petty, selfish message. Only people who are just like you should be allowed to marry. No one else is deserving. How narrow and narcissistic your view of the world is.
Marriage is not just about having children. Many heterosexual couples are either unable or uninterested in having children, but they are nonetheless devoted, faithful partners and productive members of society. And to say that marriage MUST include the giving of the body is also wrong. Some people have physical or medical conditions that prevent this, and yet, they too, are capable of sharing deep love and devotion with the right partner.
The idea that giving people more freedom somehow creates less freedom is ludicrous. If every state in the world legalized same-sex marriage today, and all the gay couples on the planet got married this afternoon, what would happen to me? Nothing! I would wake up tomorrow morning still faithfully married to my husband, still engaged in the same family relationships, still enjoying the same religious beliefs, political opinions, and personal preferences that I have right now. Perhaps I would notice increased happiness on the part of some of my friends and neighbors. That would me me a little happier, too.
http://www.romanticmarriage.org
Thank you for upholding the voice of the silent majority, Mr. Gehling. Studies have already shown that children raised by homosexual couples will have more emotional problems than kids raised by heterosexual couples, but that doesn't matter to those who live in a culture worshipping personal pleasure. Not only are they adamant on destryoing their own lives in pursuit of pleasure, but they INSIST on bringing children into their broken lives as well.
Rest assured, Mr. Gehling, they will not listen to you at all, period. However, we are bound to see their hedonistic effects on society sooner or later. Many societies have witnessed these effects in history, but we're very good at forgetting.
I, too, was blessed by being raised in a normal marriage. Although my parents did have their share of problems, once I started to compare myself to my friends who were raised by single parents , step parents, or unmarried parents, I felt very fortunate. There is no way to build a strong society without starting with strong, healthy families.
Thanks again. Please don't let the other commentators discourage you and keep writing for the protection of traditional marriage!
My mind cannot accept same sex unions as "natural". In Genesis God created man (Adam) and Eve (woman) to be one flesh and have children. That to me established marriage. Homosexuality is not natural and therefore not good. Homosexual relationships are like overeating - for the pleasure of it, because it "feels good" to gays and lesbians, and some who "feel" trapped in bodies of the opposite sex and now want to change their genders. Not natural, like being born with defects of other kinds, they need assistance, and should stop denying they do not have a physical/mental problem.
"Marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman."
This first sentence is completely false. Much of the world consists of marriage between one man and as many women as he can afford to bring into his house hold, and world history attests to even a greater share of this concept of one man and multiple women.
Since the writer was so wrong from the start I only skimmed the rest of his back up to a false premise, and was not surprised to find a tired argument with nothing new in it.
I challenge the author to believe in marriage instead of defining it.
Nature discriminates. Nature has seen to it that only heterosexual relations have the potential for procreation. Marriage recognizes this distinction, among others, and no more denies equal protection for same-sex couples that nature does.
NORMA AYUSO: "My mind cannot accept same sex unions as "natural".[...]Homosexuality is not natural and therefore not good."
You are making an argument that is referred to as the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy). There is no reason to make the leap that what is natural is good. Rape, murder, theft, adultery, infanticide, and cannibalism all exist in nature and are therefore "natural". Furthermore, your position against homosexuality is refuted by your own logic, since homosexual sex is another one of the many human behaviors that is also found in "nature".
This commentary, and the replies it has generated, show definitively why the only "right" course is for the government to get OUT of the marriage (and divorce) business.
Marriage must return to its roots, a contract between people who want to cohabit. With or without the blessings of a church of their choosing, but without the interference of government of any kind.
There is no need for government to be in it, therefore, government should stay out of it.
Government has created a goldmine for lawyers by being involved in marriage & divorce. The legislators who created the state system were, by and large, lawyers. Do the math.
All my adult life I have congratulated homosexuals on how lucky they are to be exempt from the vile and disgusting M&D system by which the State oppresses us heterosexuals.
Now, the same-sexers want to be included in the ranks of the oppressed. Not too darn smart, eh?
It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil. Stay free of the government any time, anywhere, any way you can.
I still remember the first time I went into Divorce Court. Hennepin County.
I looked at the judge, then her lawyer, then back to the judge, and I began to laugh, long & loud. The judge asked what I was laughing at. I said, "You two are twin brothers!" "So?" he asked.
"Don't you find a conflict?" I replied. "No. Proceed." He commanded.
(Kenneth & Kermit Gill. 1969. You can look it up)
It is time to dismantle the rotten system. Give life back to the owners. Us.
H G: "Marriage [...] no more denies equal protection for same-sex couples that [sic] nature does." The entire purpose of society is to create protections that are not provided in nature. It's why we create protections for orphans, the sick, and the disabled, most of whom would not even survive outside of an established society, as they don't in nature. It's why we have an entire profession devoting to helping infertile people conceive children, people who in nature would never be able to pass on their genetic material. It's why we lock up people who are dangerous to the rest of us, the same people who in "nature" would be the rulers because they are the strongest or most powerful. Why would you want us to devolve back into our "natural" state and get rid of all the "unnatural" protections that our society establishes?
Content Praiser: "Thank you for upholding the voice of the silent majority, Mr. Gehling."
Americans against same-sex marriage are neither silent nor in the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States).
"The entire purpose of society is to create protections that are not provided in nature."
Not so, Lily B...
The main purpose of society is to form rules of human behavior that allow us to live in close proximity to one another in order to trade freely and enrich each other (greed) without coming to blows every 5 minutes.
Lily: Interesting. Assuming your premise is correct, then I would say that marriage isn' t the only civil union. Other unions exist or may be created which afford protections marriage provides. Marrriage in and of itself doesn't prevent equal protection simply by being exclusively heterosexual.
If you strip out religion and marketing, then marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people. Period. Have a party if you want..have a house of worship recognize it if you want, but it's just an agreement between two folks.
D K: Stipping marriage of tradition, history, religion, and nature is exactly what most oppose. Those who with to stip marriage of these have no respect for what marriage is and means. That is why most would rather marriage be left alone and allow same-sex couples an alternative.
H G: "Lily:[...]marriage isn't the only civil union. Other unions exist or may be created which afford protections marriage provides."
I agree, marriage is not the only "civil union", meaning a relationship defined by the government and accorded certain rights between 1 party to another. For instance, the gov. recognizes the relationship between a parent/guardian and an adopted child. This relationship is distinctly different from the relationship between a married couple, in that a parent may make decisions on behalf of their (minor) child, but not vice versa, whereas 2 people in a marriage have equal priveleges.
Now, I think we both agree that we would find ridiculous the notion of assigning one term to the adoption of a female child and another to the adoption of a male child, or for the adoption by a woman of a child versus the adoption by a man of a child. This is because the gender of the child and parent has no bearing on the nature of the relationship/contract as is pertains to the govmnt. Similarly, the nature of a marriage is not affected by the genders of the 2 parties as it pertains to the govmnt, as I'm sure you would agree. There, as in the case of adoption, it is unnecessary to assign a different term to the contract depending on the genders, when as you suggest all the priveleges of opposite-sex marriage would be maintained. What argument is there to keep everything the same except the name? What would be the point?
I wouldn't have said it better than the author. I must admit from example and experience marriage isn't merely a party of two individuals tied in a contract as one commenter suggested. I understood fully through the example of my mother and father what marriage took. No icing on the cake, as it took work, and it showed me an example of both a female and male role model working together, an invaluable lesson. As the author mentioned, as changes occur to that family unit, profound and life lasting effects on ones life, and consequently society as a whole are the result. I know that M/F marriage is the common experience for most people, possibly becoming less common, however this is not to say any individual in a negative situation can pursue a positive affect. Many of us realize that there have been versions of marriage that included many women ect but a thoughtful, lawful marriage between one man, and one woman as have been standard among most cultures for eons have allow the most respect for both the male and female individual and consequently for children as well. Not sure how that can possibly be argued against except in our jaded twisted take on relationships in this era may somehow make this an acceptable option. If we leave the definition open, why not marry ones child, an adolescent, a goat? Sounds bizarre perhaps, but not to far of a stretch when we consider what might be preferable to some. History bears example as another commented likewise. Vote Yes
Steve H: "[my parents' marriage] showed me an example of both a female and male role model"
If one of the requirements for marriage is a female role model and a male role model, then should people who don't conform to traditional gender roles not be allowed to marry? What about the marriage of a feminine woman and a feminine man? Their children would have no masculine role models. Your definition of marriage could lead to requirements that potential partners demonstrate that they display traditional male and female qualities.
"If we leave the definition open, why not marry ones child, an adolescent, a goat?"
Because both parties have to give consent and sign a legal document. Minors can't give legal consent and goats can't even sign a document, much less give legal consent. No one is trying to change the requirements for marriage or the nature of marriage or the people allowed to marry. Gays and lesbians can already legally marry (unlike minors and goats), they just can't marry EACH OTHER. To reiterate: nobody is trying to open up marriage to parties that CAN'T ALREADY MARRY.
Lily: That wast the my point to begin with. Same sex union are not the same as heterosexual unions (marriage). The potential for procreation means the potential for a biological family.
"It is a matrix of human relationships rooted in the spouses' sexual complementarity and procreative possibilities, and in children's need for sustained parental nurturance and support. It creates clear ties of begetting and belonging, ties of identity, kinship and mutual interdependence and responsibility." - Witherspoon Institute
The benefits of uniting a man and woman in matrimony and the potential benefits to family, children and society can never be matched by same sex unions. The differences alone beg for a distinction in name (ie., marriage).
To change marriage to include same-sex unions is to strip marriage of not only its natural distinction, but its tradition, history and religion. Too many of us are going to do our best to preserve what we observe and beilieve to be essential to marriage.
Lily: It is not only gays and lesbians that cannot marry members of the same sex.
You're right that no person is denied to marry a member of the oppoiste sex. But no person may marry a person of the same sex either.
"Their marriage has had no purpose but to freely, permanently and exclusively give themselves to one another in love. " -- That sounds about right, but two people of the same sex can do exactly the same thing. Where is the harm in that?
Also, I'd just like to say that an on-the-farm upbringing does not automatically equate to this sort of willful ignorance in adulthood. I was a rural kid, too, with wonderful parents of my own. I actively support gay rights, and so does my husband.
And what are you going to do if your child is gay?
H G:"Same sex union are not the same as heterosexual unions (marriage). The potential for procreation means the potential for a biological family."
You can't define marriage as only between people who can procreate. This would exclude a couple in which at least one party is infertile, or a couple that doesn't intend to have children. Furthermore, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can conceive children via alternate fertility methods, or adopt. So there's no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in their ability to have and raise children.
You state that allowing two people of the same sex to marry would strip marriage of its tradition, history, and religion. In my first comment I outlined several instances in which the definition of marriage was changed WITHIN the context of religion, so it's false to claim that any new change would wipe away its history or be the first time to redefine it. Also, what do you mean by "religion"? Do you mean YOUR religion? Because my religion (Conservative Judaism) allows same-sex marriage. Why should MY marriage have to conform to YOUR religion rather than my own? That's why we have religious freedom in the US.
H G: Also, regarding your other point: I agree, no person is denied the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex. That was my point to Steve H: that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not be expanding marriage to any NEW parties that can't already marry (such as children and goats), because gays and lesbians can already marry.
Also thank you for the civil discussion.
Lily,
I didn't define marriage as between only people who can procreate. I pointed out that marriage is between people with the "potential" to procreate. That potential is limited in scope to very basic presumption that members of the opposite sex are the only means of biological procreation. It is this potential, that primarily distinguishes marriage from same-sex unions and, as stated before, should not be stripped from marriage to accomodate the inclusion of 'any two people in love regardless of gender'.
As for religion, I mean the predominate religious teaching characteristic of marriage throughout all of history.
I too appreciate the civil discussion. Thank you.
Shame on you, MPR, for publishing this. Please remain objective!
H G: "[...]marriage is between people with the "potential" to procreate."
People who are infertile do not have the "potential" to procreate, yet they can still marry. Therefore the definition, or legality, or whatever, of marriage has nothing to do with procreation. You can't say it has something to do with procreation when nothing--- nothing in the Bible, nothing in the New Testament, nothing in the Mishna, nothing in the Talmud, nothing in the Constitution, and most importantly nothing in American law--- mentions procreation or the "potential" to procreate as a prerequisite for marriage.
Heather H from WI, Ignorance is not upholding truth, not standing against fallacy. Ignorance is ignoring truth and turning a blind eye to it. Ignorance and apathy is the reason we find ourselves needing to clear up definitions because others choose to apply new ones. Lily makes a false claim that nowhere is it mentioned in Bible, New Testament, Tora that children are a prerequisite. This is not true whatsoever when speaking for the bible at the least and suspect on the credibility of the statement that the rest would be untrue as well. Context of the entire writing makes clear the purpose of marriage, various verses focus on it. I will not speak specifics for other writings but I'm sure you would find deeper meaning within those books as well then the super-condensed offering you give. Here are a scant few of a great many supporting examples from the bible.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Thessalonians 4:3-5 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;
1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Genisis 3-20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living
Steve H: "Lily makes a false claim that nowhere is it mentioned in Bible, New Testament, Tora that children are a prerequisite."
This claim is true. Are you telling me that people unable to bear children are barred from marriage in the New Testament? I know this is not the case in Judaism--- there are many requirements for marriage but fertility is not one of them. Name one place in Jewish or Christian law where fertility is a prerequisite for marriage--- not simply a reference to women having children, as in Genesis 3:20. Also, none of the other verses you quotes have anything to do with procreation...
Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals: all men are free to marry women, and vice versa. There is nothing in law that states that a homosexual man cannot get married to a woman, if he so chooses.
No man, heterosexual or otherwise, is permitted to marry his sister, his first cousin, or his mother. There are many regulations as to what constitutes a valid marriage. If we allow marriage to also be between a man and a man, why not also allow for a "communal" marriage of a group of 10 men and women? There are plenty of people who believe in having multiple partners but would still like the legal benefits that come from marriage.
What is the reason that marriage should be extended to homosexual couples, but not to heterosexual or homosexual groups of people, or to one man and multiple women (or one woman and multiple men)?
"Marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman."
This talking point is continuously raised by those opposing same-sex marriage but it's simply not true; or at least not accurate enough.
Until 1967, Marriage was understood as the union of one WHITE man and one WHITE woman, or one BLACK man and one BLACK woman, etc, etc.
Mark L: "What is the reason that marriage should be extended to homosexual couples, but not to heterosexual or homosexual groups of people, or to one man and multiple women (or one woman and multiple men)?"
Theoretically, there is no reason. If multiple people want to engage in a polygamous relationship, and ALL are *consenting* adults, why should we prohibit this?
The issue, in reality, is that almost all polygamous relationships (thus far) involve some level of participants who are either under age or have been coerced. Clearly, that is not acceptable, and one could reasonably make the argument that we should err on the side of caution -- for now, anyway.
If you are against same-sex marriage, don't marry someone who is the same sex as you. There. You're off the hook.
How does same sex marriage impact you, anyway, Mr. Gehling? Does it, in any way, impede on your rights? Does it impact, in any way, what you and your wife do you in your bedroom?
What you suggest is that the "others" in our society do not have the right to a committed, lifetime relationship in which the legalities of civic life will be protected. You are, in fact, condemning them to half citizenship and denying the comfort of protection within a legally binding relationship.
I find that to be discriminatory, unconstitutional, and (although I am not one but you are) unChristian in its lack of compassion. Oh, yeah, and just plain mean spirited.
How sad for you and your family, Mr. Gehling, that you cannot see anyone's happiness but your own. I hope your future children have enough exposure to the outside world and the world of love and compassion to reject your xenophobic view and go on to live whole, happy lives with the partners of their choice.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
I keep reading and hearing the same arguments. Tradition, history, religion, children, all are supposed to be the reason for keeping marriage between man and woman. All of them can be disputed. Tradition, a great reason, right? It's why we still have slavery, because it is a tradition. History, because it never gets rewritten, right? Religion, because that's unchanging too...except when it isn't. And children. Like we don't have children born out of marriage or married parents abandoning their children.
Folks, we don't live in a perfect world. It's messy and imperfect and the best we can hope for is one person that we feel we can commit to and share our lives with. If we're lucky, we'll have children that are wanted and loved, that we'll raise to be responsible, caring, compassionate adults. To keep someone from having that relationship, that commitment, simply because it doesn't fit our perfect ideal is simply wrong. And Mr. Gehling, perhaps you need to listen to Zach Wahls from Iowa talk about his two moms. He speaks as passionately about them as you do about your parents. It's not what sex they are that matters. It's how much love and wisdom they give you as you grow that counts.
If we are going to change the definition of marriage - when will it end. Why can't the definition of marriage be "between one woman and one man"? Are we going to keep redefining words whenever we feel like it? Why not make up a new one? If it is equal rights homosexuals are lookin for - I'm sure they will get it - but why the need to redefine a word? When with this redefining end? Next will it be the union of 10 man and 3 women - a man and his mother - a woman and her cat? Doesn't this seem silly to anyone else! The changing of a definition just costs the taxpayers an incredible amount of money and a legal nightmare for our legal and governmental system - just work on getting the rights you wish instead of changing the definition. I think everyone is entitled to their opionion on what they think is good for society and family - but now if we change the definition we are always going to have to prefice the word marriage by saying - gay or heterosexual or group marriage - what alot of hassel, tax payer money, and time.
Isn't it true that the priest, pastor, holy man tells the audience before the man and woman are married let no one else break their contract to God? Confirm this
We might as well change the definition of left to right and keep right as right. Up to down and keep down as down. I like the one man with many wives definition. Changing it from multiple wives to one isn't a drastic of a change as changing a wife to a male fudge companion. ewwww. That's just messed up. Even buddha calls gay people confused.
What, if any, is the microbiological basis for outlawing sex/marriage between father and son? If there is no known microbiological reason to outlaw such an act, then does this mean there is no possible microbiological reason to outlaw it? Unethical acts are the function of injuring the hapless and weak by way of a too-convenient means of seeking one's own distorted version of happiness. Sex is a very powerful force in the human psyche. I would even say it is the most powerful. In any case, it has the power to overcome its own rightful bounds, if not in all individuals at the same time, then in a population over time and generations. Anyone with a libido will admit that.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
