By Dr Andrew Corbett, Author of "What Is A Family?", 1st August 2009
Arguing against same-gender couple “marriage” feels like arguing against square-circles. Yet this is what we are being asked to do. This can be done in three ways. Firstly, we can reiterate why marriage is between a man and a woman. This is like being asked to defend the roundness of circles. Secondly, we can argue from nature that marriage is naturally between a man and a woman. This is like arguing that round things are circular. Thirdly, we can argue that two people of the same gender cannot ever be considered “married”. This is like arguing that even though a square claims to be a circle its claims are hampered because it has four sides.
CIRCLES ARE ROUND
The purpose of marriage has always been to unite a man and a woman (to the exclusion of all others) so that they can have and raise children in the most natural and secure way. Thus marriage has occurred since the beginning of time and in every culture. The welfare of children has to be one of the highest values for a society. Raising children in a safe, secure, nurturing, and wholesome way is the best way to ensure that these children grow into upstanding, community-minded, contributing members of society.
Therefore, marriage between a man and a woman is biologically necessary to produce children. It is also biologically necessary for the raising of children. In my book, What Is A Family? I give the research to support this premise that children are best raised by their own biological mum and dad. The next best is where they are raised by a mum and a dad.
Biology does matter when it comes to marriage. Therefore, it is not bigotry to restrict marriage to a man and woman – it’s biology!
[read the full article]
No comments:
Post a Comment