I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I also believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. You might wonder then, how can these two statements be reconciled?
First, you can't change the definition of marriage any more than you can change the definition of other family relationships. For example, if I have a new nephew, can I refuse to be called his uncle and demand that society identify me as his aunt instead? Some may refute this by saying that there are no rights associated with being an uncle as there are with being a husband or wife.
My answer: my point exactly.
Why shouldn't other relationships have the same rights? If marriage is just a relationship of love and is about receiving benefits, why can't a father and
daughter get married? Can two first cousins get married so they can visit each other in the hospital or receive other benefits as a husband and wife do? What about two siblings?
Or can three women get married to each other?
marriage is legalized, then polygamy must be legalized; incest must be
legalized. If marriage is a relationship of love - and I can love whomever
I want - why can't I marry my sister or brother or marry more than one person?
Do I have the power to re-define "uncle"? No. And if I disagree with that definition, perhaps I should take up my cause with the dictionary, not the government.
The federal government should not be defining marriage one way or the other. It has no right to determine what the dictionary says. I am 100% supportive of guaranteeing gays and lesbians full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals under the law. But, whatever relationship two individuals of the same sex make with each other - whatever it may be - it should not be called marriage! We need to get government out of marriage in order to protect and preserve it.
Government should instead institute a program in which any two citizens can designate each other as their beneficiary. Such a designation would have no sexual connotations whatsoever - thus avoiding the issue of incest. Any TWO people would be able to designate each other (regardless of gender,
sexual orientation, or age) as the recipient of their benefits - thus avoiding the issue of legalizing
polygamy. It would purely be about who gets what benefits. Under this system, a traditionally married couple would still enjoy their benefits and the sanctity of their religious marriage. A same-sex couple would enjoy all the rights and benefits they demand that are currently enjoyed by married couples.
We do need to preserve marriage. Countless studies have been done in recent years that support the idea
of traditional marriage as a societal good - economically,
psychologically, and socially. We as a society are attempting an
experiment with same-sex marriage and like any experiment, the results
may not be what we expect; there will be disastrous consequences for a failed experiment such as this.
Right at the core of it all, the issue is not about same-sex marriage.
Society has already re-defined marriage for us. We're just waiting for
our government to catch up with "modern" society. Same-sex marriage is
only the logical conclusion of society's view of marriage as a mere
contract for adults and is a result of the overall decline and
transformation of marriage over the past 50 years.
Parenthood - built on the foundation of traditional marriage - is the ultimate role of selflessness. Those "who have a value
system that causes them to subordinate their own needs to those of
others, especially to the welfare of children" should support
traditional marriage...."We need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests" - Dallin H Oaks.