Today I want to share a letter to the editor that I wrote to the Providence Journal in response to an article entitled, “Really, it’s time to wrap up the nonsense” by Bob Kerr, which promotes enshrining homosexual “marriage” in RI law. Kerr states that there is no legitimate argument based on reason against same-sex “marriage”. I decided to set aside my Bible and dialogue based on reason alone because there are actually several arguments.
The first argument comes from the natural order. Living things preserve their existence and procreate based on a fusion of heterosexual union. If we deviate from the natural order, we manipulate the purpose of created things and stifle life. A thriving flourishing forest is a beautiful place to live, providing animals and vegetation for daily sustenance. If we manipulate the natural order, the forest becomes barren and unsustainable. Reasonably, we should strive to maintain the natural inclination of heterosexual union between a man and woman as well.
Second, the American College of Pediatricians warns against same-sex families as harmful to children stating that “the environment in which children are raised is critical to their development” (see position statement on acpeds.org). Stefanowicz, author of the book Out From Under: the Impact of Homosexual Parenting, was not alone in experiencing damaging psychological and emotional effects being raised in a homosexual household. Before enshrining homosexual unions in law, I urge all to consider the right of every child to a healthy future.
Third, is the reason of maintaining the integrity of our democratic nation. The majority of people in RI are not in favor of homosexual unions. In 2011 at the state house hearing on the civil-unions bill, I witnessed elected state representatives clearly state that they received an overwhelming amount of correspondence in opposition to passing the civil-unions bill, and a minimal amount in favor of it.
The fourth argument derives from our right to protect the common good, respecting the freedom of ALL individuals by not infringing upon the established ethical order. Freedom can abolish itself if not protected by the evidential character of shared moral convictions. True freedom is exercised when EACH individual is free to abide by the internal voice of truth that echoes in their conscience. By forcing the moral convictions of a few gay rights activists on the majority, freedom is annihilated. Freedom cannot be for oneself alone—it serves mankind as a whole. Therefore, a nation that cuts itself off from its foundational ethical convictions commits suicide and abolishes freedom. (see DeTocqueville’s Democracy in America).
Finally, the definition of marriage is the union between one man and woman. A homosexual union is not a marriage. There is no point in changing the definition of a word, just like there is no point in calling a housecat a panther. It is better to define a thing by what it is. A homosexual union is just that. There is no argument based on reason to change the meaning of a word, because a definition pertains to the essence of what a thing is. Marriage is what it is and a homosexual union is what it is.
On Tuesday, January 15, a hearing will be held at the RI State House to present a bill in favor of homosexual “marriage” which means redefining marriage, as well. Currently, RI is the only state in New England that has not legalized homosexual “marriage”. I invite all to pray and sacrifice for a positive outcome.
Rene thank you for sharing this article! It is really good, very clear, simple, and straight to the point. Please, keep writing more like this. God bless!
After reading your article, here are me thoughts
1) If you are trying to argue without reference to God then you cant use phrases like “manipulate the purpose of created things”. What purpose? Who created?
2) How does that quote from the ACP actually relate to homosexuals? And “Stefanowicz was not alone in having a bad experience of same-sex parents”. Does that prove anything? (There are millions of kids from different gender families who also had a bad experience, should we stop them marrying?)
3) Maintaining democracy.. Should ethical decisions be based on popular vote?
4) “By letting a few gays get their way, it is stopping the rest of us who oppose it from being free.” That is the argument the Romans used to justify killing Christians. What happens when you are the minority? Do definitions change?
5) I think you are picking up your Bible again. Most non Christians would claim that marriage is a social contract of rights and responsibilities, and not necessarily agree to your definition, so you cant build on your assumptions like that.
6) Have you ever spent any time with gay people? I think you should, you might like them.
Sorry if I sound negative towards your article. But you as a religious member of the Church sharing the Truths of the Church with the world, you need to know our side of the world too and our way of reasoning to effectively communicate those truths. Not just yours.
Thanks for writing it and please pray for me
Hi Terri,
Thank you for your interest in my article and for your reflections and comments.
1) I believe that it is possible to ascertain by reason alone that everything on earth is ordered to a particular “purpose” and to discover that there must have been an Intelligent Being who “created” all things in the world. The study of metaphysics and theodicy confirm this.
2) The quote from the ACP actually refers directly to homosexuals, though I did not have room to expound further. There is consistent psychological evidence that the vast majority of children raised by homosexual couples have psychological difficulties as a result. Please also take a look at the homosexual movement who is not in favor of homosexual “marriage” precisely for this reason. BBC French homosexuals join rally against gay marriage: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/11702
Yes, I agree that some kids raised by heterosexual families do have bad experiences, but not the overwhelming majority of them, as is the case in homosexual households.
3) If we are going to maintain that governmental foundation of our country and the integrity of state officials elected to represent the majority, then yes we should still rely on popular vote.
4) Terri, I’m not sure if you meant to quote me or a general idea, but I didn’t state: “By letting a few gays get their way, it is stopping the rest of us who oppose it from being free.” What I am saying is that freedom serves EVERY individual, not just some. If rights are demanded that infringe upon others’ rights, then there is no longer true freedom. If by redefining “marriage” the fundamental structure of society changes, infringing upon the rights of heterosexual couples to raise their children according to their values and the voice of their conscience, then that is wrong. I have seen that happen and it shouldn’t. Therefore, it is better to maintain the FREEDOM of ALL. Heterosexual couples are free to practice their lifestyle and homosexual couples are free to practice their lifestyle. There is no need to redefine marriage.
5) I picked up the dictionary to define marriage, not my Bible. Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman throughout history, societies, and cultures. I refer to the following sources: Merriam- Webster, dictionary.reference.com, Oxford.
6) I have spent time with gay people and I do like them. I’ve had friends who are homosexual. The people are wonderful, but I still don’t think we should change the definition of marriage.
Terri, thanks for your words and for seeking to dialogue. I too hope to dialogue and to understand. I have studied the truths of the Church and I appreciate your interest in my being able to communicate them effectively with the world. I hope I can do that better.
I certainly will pray for you. Please pray for me too. Renee
Thank you Renee! This was an excellent letter to the editor.