If the purpose of a marriage is to produce offspring, what about barren women? What about sterile men? Should these people not be allowed to marry or be forced to divorce because they are unable to produce offspring? How are these people any different from any other type of couple incapable of reproducing? They are no different!
An article on RedState last week posited the idea that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry because not only can they not naturally reproduce, but they also can not provide mothering and fathering; they can only provide mothering and mothering or fathering and fathering. What happens when one parent dies? Should the surviving parent be forced to remarry so that the children grow up in a “proper” home with both a mother and father? Of course not.
The article continues on that race has nothing to do with marriage. I’m glad we agree on that point. “Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The color of two people’s skin has nothing to do with their marital bond. However, the sexual difference between a man and a woman is central to what marriage is.” And, what is that centrality? The ability to reproduce? I refer you back to the first paragraph.
So, then, why disallow same sex couples from marrying? Because you don’t want them to. And, that’s a terrible reason. Not that long ago, race was a reason to disallow marriage because it was a threat to what we knew as the sanctity of marriage. Getting rid of those racist laws worked out okay for us. The world didn’t end and the country didn’t fall into the depths of hell. Giving everyone the same rights only moves us forward, making us a more civilized and accepting society.
Related Posts
Latest posts by Bryan Driscoll (see all)
- Where is the Outrage from the Right? - February 19, 2017
- Eight Days - January 29, 2017
- Tomorrow - January 21, 2017
