Letters to the Editor – September 9, 2017

Updated September 8 2017 - 1:34pm, first published 12:39pm

Legal definition the key

We have seen claims from both sides of the marriage debate that no rational argument can be made for the other’s position. Clearly the issue is being viewed from two very different perspectives. My position is no secret and I would like to offer what I think is a rational, though brief, argument for traditional marriage. What is often lost sight of in this debate is that we are not simply being asked whether we think two people who love each should be allowed to marry regardless of their respective genders. What we are being asked is whether the legal definition of marriage should be changed to allow that to happen. For us to properly consider that question we need to understand why marriage is legally defined the way it is now – why societies and nations have put legal boundaries around marriage which are also reflected in the traditional marriage vows. Marital longevity and fidelity promote social stability and harmony, as well as security for any children of the union: hence the “as long as we both shall live” and the “forsaking all others” parts. The “union of this man and this woman” reflects the fundamental importance of identity. Each one of us is the product of two significant people, a man and a woman who together gave us the biological foundation of our identity. The importance of this has been amply evidenced in case after case of individuals desperately searching for that significant person who can satisfy the basic human need to know who we are. In general, biological families have a bond unlike any other, which best provides the certainty and security which children need to flourish. Sadly, not all children are able to experience growing up with their biological parents, in which case loving step-fathers, mothers, or opposite-gender adoptive parents can best compensate for that missing mother-or-father-figure or both. Girls and boys need role models of manhood and womanhood in loving relationship and the unique contribution of each in parenthood. Not every married couple has children, but that is no reason to change the model, and who knows when a couple may wish to adopt children or be asked to care for the children of others. Nor is every marriage the ideal, but that is no reason to move the goal posts. I acknowledge that any loving parenting arrangement is better for a child than being unloved, but if we rule out “best” for some children by legislation, we will alter a fundamental social dynamic, and to that I cannot agree. 

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

$0/

(min cost $0)

or signup to continue reading

See subscription options

Get the latest Warrnambool news in your inbox

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.