Student: Approving gay marriage clears path for bestiality, incest

Editor:

I am writing in response to the editorial in the Oct. 22 Colonnade titled “Gay marriage no slippery slope.” I looked on Right From the Heart Ministries’ Web site, and I couldn’t find the message that the editorial referred to. As a result, I’m not writing this letter to defend their position because I don’t know how Islam was mentioned in the context. Instead, I will try to further explain, as stated in the article, the “conservative Christian” outlook on this issue. I want to point out that this perspective on homosexuality can be argued without religious reference because it is a profoundly fundamental issue that affects society as a whole.

I want to begin by looking at the traditional definition of marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Jones v. Hallahan that, “Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.” The Oxford English dictionary defines it as, “the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife.” The definition of marriage has been recognized and protected in civilizations throughout human history. Furthermore, not one human culture has successfully changed its basic meaning. Why should we reconstruct this foundational institution?

Although the Web site’s analogy to Islamic polygamy may be a poor one, the organization does bring up a legitimate question concerning social instability. I contend that legalizing gay marriage will invariably lead to the legalization of polygamy and incest. Why not? Cases already have been filed in Utah that seek the legalization of polygamy in response of the 2003 Supreme Court Case Lawrence vs. Texas that dealt with sodomy. If we extend the definition of marriage to a deep, life-long relationship that promotes devotion and love, then why can’t a person marry a sibling, a pet, or all of the above for that matter? I just don’t see where we can draw the line in our redefinition. If we broaden marriage’s meaning, then it will inevitably be reduced to a partnership to receive benefits and conveniences rather than a relationship founded on intimacy.

Some people argue that homosexuals are denied equal rights to marriage, yet they hold the same rights that all Americans have. They can marry one person of the opposite sex that isn’t a close relative or already married. Whether people exercise this right or not is irrelevant. Law prohibits me to marry my sister because it is detrimental to society.

I will agree that divorce is tearing apart families, and the traditional family is becoming less common. However, this statement does not mean that we shouldn’t encourage its creation. Study after study has concluded that children do better with a mother and father. Statistically, children are less likely to use illegal drugs, drop out of school, commit suicide or become teen parents. Should we not try to promote that lifestyle instead of disregarding it as an irrelevant portion of society and history?

Consequently, traditional marriage must be protected. We should not redefine an institution that has remained constant throughout civilization and is beneficial to the next generation of children. Instead, let’s value its meaning.

Sam Rauschenberg
Sophomore, Political Science

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Oct 29 2004. Filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry