When the homophobes can’t find space in their own jurisdiction to spew their garbage they look for and use spaces where homophobia is rife to encourage it even further with unsubstantiated crap like this letter excerpted below.
Have a read and determine the reasoning for yourself.
Marriage predates the church and government, being a creation of neither, yet legislatures and judiciaries – such as US District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against California’s Proposition 8 – presume to redefine it with ideology presented as rights, fairness, privacy, or the equivalent of harmless miscegenation.
Same-sex union is not a rights issue, as marriage is not a right, but something with requirements – I cannot marry my sons, nephews, or parents, yet. Governments recognise that marriage is not due to rights of coupling or presence of equivalent feelings but because, whatever its shortfalls, heterosexual marriage is the best environment in which to produce and raise children, the fullest expression of sexual role modelling, and a union and sacrifice which improves both sexes through the complementarity the one brings to the other. It is therefore in the public interest.
Is forbidding gay marriage unfair? University of Texas Professor J Budziszewski asserts that fairness is two-sided: it must neither arbitrarily exclude nor arbitrarily include. Same-sex marriage fails to meet the just and fair qualifications for matrimony, which requires heterosexual complementarity and the procreative priority. Former Harvard professor James Q Wilson said, “The vast majority of people do better if men marry women. The sexes complement each other.” Same-sex marriage is incongruous, tending to amplify the tendencies of a gender, namely male promiscuity or female dependency, and is inherently sterile. When a gay marriage involves children, they are denied a mother and father, and enter a family structure that decades of studies show to have the worst outcomes for them. Heterosexual marriages are sometimes infertile, but even then, sexual complementarity and role modelling is present. Thus, it is gay marriage that is unfair.
The claim that one’s private marriage arrangement affects no one else is myopic. Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz’s report, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia”, documents how, despite supportive and subsidising governments, affirming (and evaporating) liberal churches, and a public legally coerced into compliance and silence by one-sided hate-speech codes, few gays marry and the rest of society follows suit. Impressive data demonstrate that same-sex marriage weakens marriage for all and fosters illegitimacy by separating in the public mind the concepts of matrimony and procreation.
The comparison to interracial marriage is groundless. Races differ in virtually nothing, while the sexes differ greatly. Marriage between man and woman – interracial or not – is ancient, extends life, improves health, and benefits society. Same-sex marriage is recent revisionism; shortens life through sexual practices rarely divulged in the argument; and has higher rates of domestic violence.
Non-heterosexual marriage concerns gaining social approval for same-sex lifestyles and politics and masquerades as the gay norm it will never be. Aside from being bad for the same sex attracted due to its brevity and higher rates of violence, it is neither pro-marriage, pro-monogamy, nor pro-children. Marriage has been and should remain between one man and one woman.
Dr Andre Van Mol