Why should marriage be defined only as a union between a man and a woman? In 2003, Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, was part of an effort to pass a constitutional amendment to that effect. Colson at that time discussed why the issue is so important and to understand what the implications are if society broadens its definition of marriage.
|Do You Like this Article? Then Like Us on Facebook.|
Can you lay out a solid argument for why marriage is to be only between a man and a woman?
Marriage, as an institution between a man and a woman, is basically for procreation. Homosexual marriage, therefore, is an oxymoron--there is no such thing. It is something else. It is two people coming together for recreation, not for procreation. Procreation can only happen between a man and a woman.
Every society has recognized this, going back to the beginning of recorded history. Societies recognize that it is in their self-interest to preserve this institution and to give it a distinct status under the law. Marriage is the institution that civilizes and propagates the human race. It is where children are raised and learn the ways of right and wrong. Their consciences are informed in the family.
What do you say to people who argue that no one has the right to stop them from doing their own thing in a consenting relationship?
I wonder if that person would really believe you should do your own thing if it involves incest or polygamy. Is that person really saying that there is no place where you draw the line on sexual behavior? I don't think so. There are reasonable boundaries that the law tends to protect. My argument would be that society's survival depends on the family. And the institution of the family is in deep trouble. So you have a serious question about whether this society can continue.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Charisma News