I’ve just become aware of a current national survey on the hot topic homosexual marriage. “Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012”
It asks for a 250 word explanation of your opinion. I thought I’d share what I wrote with y’all:
Once we cross the line to recognise homosexual marriage (‘homosexual marriage’ is by definition an oxymoron), then we put one foot on a very slippery slope. Once marriage is open to being redefined then there is no logical basis (or any other basis) for denying polygamous, incestuous, zoophiliacal or any other cohabitational variation. We need to draw the line somewhere, and the traditional definition of what marriage is, is the most logical and pragmatic place.
The cohabitation of one man and one woman has always been the criteria for defining what a marriage is. A man and his car is not a marriage; a woman and her wardrobe is not marriage; a dog and it’s bone is not a marriage; a man and a boy is not marriage, and in the same way two men or two woman does not constitute marriage.
As far as I’m concerned, you can not change the definition of ‘marriage’ to include homosexuality any more than you can change the definition of ‘fruit’ to include a spanner.
No comments:
Post a Comment