There was an interesting op-ed in my morning paper which I think was written to merely express this person’s dislike for same sex marriage. Instead of writing strongly about one point and making a good argument, this person wrote about a couple of points that didn’t relate or really make his argument.
First this person said that same sex marriage is against the natural law and the laws of nature. Yes, they wrote it both ways, and I’m not sure why.
Uh, when did nature write a law book that defined marriage? Was this person wanting to talk about sex and procreation? If so, they never mentioned it. Now clearly nature in terms of sex did not write a law that defines marriage, for we all know two people do not need to be married to produce offspring.
Second, if marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation, then does that mean sterile males or barren females should not be allowed to get married? If procreation is to determine that ability for people to be married, does that mean nature allows for polygamy? How many females will a stud, on any type of farm, mate with during the mating season? How many flowers will pollenate with different flowers to produce more fruits, vegetables, and other blooms? Also, why did nature allow for single cell organism to exist and reproduce asexually, if a male and female are to be together in one union?
The person then continued on to reference the Judge in California who over turned Prop 8. The writer just made the point that “we don’t want it”. They wrote the students don’t want homework and people driving fast don’t want speeding tickets. Yet, this is an issue that a judge is forcing us to face, and “we” don’t want. I must ask, who is “we”? In their examples, they isolated two groups of people that define things they don’t want. I ask again, who is “we” that does not want to work with an accept the issue of same sex marriage?
The person did leave their name at the end of their piece. I must say though, for a Reverend, I expected something that was written better. At least they did not try to bring religion into their weak argument.