The Daily Post 19 Aug 2012
In the continuing debate over same-sex “marriage”, there is one question that has not so far been answered, and that is: “Why?”
Why is it that homosexuals and lesbians want to be allowed to “marry” when they have had civil unions available to them since 2004, which confer on the participants largely the same rights and responsibilities as marriage?
The main argument put forward by the proponents seems to be over adoption, something which is not permitted by the legislation on civil unions. However, there is provision in law for people in non-marital relationships to adopt as individuals.
This desire for homosexual couples to be able to adopt seems to me to be the ultimate exercise in wanting your cake and eating it, too. By their very nature, homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce, except through IVF treatments or by the use of surrogate fathers or mothers.
And that, to my mind, makes marriage the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals – men and women who cleave to one another to, among other things, have children and to bring them up in a traditional family environment.
In any case, there are, as one opponent of same-sex “marriage” has pointed out, all sorts of bans against marriage, even for heterosexuals: children cannot marry, fathers cannot marry daughters or brothers marry sisters, a married man cannot marry another woman – the list goes on. And, as he says, it is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away when they have never existed in the first place.