The focus of this debate needs to be on what’s best for society, instead of the desires of an individual couple. Is same-sex marriage good for society?

The government recognizes the benefits that marriage between one man and one woman brings to society — for example, the ability to produce new citizens and raise them in a stable home with a mom and a dad. Homosexual couples can do neither of these things, so why change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals?

If Question 1 passes, who will be next to change the definition of marriage?

When deciding the legality of laws, courts look at precedence.

If same-sex unions are made legal, then the standard with which to follow will be personal preference, spelled out in a loving, committed relationship — that’s all.

The “Yes on 1” campaign says that same-sex couples should have the legal right to marry because they are “loving and committed.” Those are good qualities in any relationship, but should they be the only qualifiers for marriage?

If a this is the legal basis for allowing for same-sex marriage, then it seems next to impossible to argue against polygamy.

After all, couldn’t three people be in a “loving, committed relationship”? What about four?

The precedent will be set to allow couples who are loving and committed of any age to get married and of varying family relations (stepsister or stepbrother, for example).

Is opening this legal door really what’s best for society?

Chris Hearn is a resident of New Sweden.

 

Copy the Story Link