Marriage and the Homosexual Community

One of the big issues being debated today is marriage, specifically the desire of homosexual community to be able to enter the same arrangement. The institution of marriage is defined as: “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” The homosexual community wants to change this definition based on discrimination and perhaps a desire to feel accepted. However, marriage has always been defined as an institution between man and women.

Marriage and its definition are also sacred to many religious communities. They see that its definition can never be changed, because its very foundation is the basis for the genesis of a family, procreation, and the rearing of children. The attempt by the homosexual community to hijack the definition and change it, will always be challenged by the religious community, because the religious community disagrees not only with homosexuality as a practice, but also the attempt to change marriage’s definition is seen as an outside attack upon their beliefs.

I do not understand homosexuality, plain and simple. I know the Bible speaks against it, but I also live under a government today that accepts its practice. We are a government that tries to not dictate religious views.

I am empathetic to the homosexual community with regards to the state. If the state says homosexuality if not against the law, then perhaps the state should make provisions for what they have created.

Also, consider two spinsters that live together for several years. They have pooled their resources, bought a house together, and maintain a tight financial interdependence. Whether they are engaging in sex or not, it doesn’t matter. They are in their own right a family unit. The same is true with homosexual couples. Given that the state has said “it’s OK”, then the state needs to create similar contracts and tax mechanisms for homosexual couples.

However, the homosexual community has an obligation to create its own social institutional name for their type of relationship and not hijack the heterosexual community’s term: marriage. Doing so is an attempt to impose their will on the heterosexual community.

I challenge the homosexual community to create their own term for their relationship. It’s not hard and in fact very much respectful to those who don’t believe the way they do. Continuing to try and make the term marriage apply to both heterosexual arrangements and homosexual ones can only be seen by the heterosexual community as attempt to dictate the homosexual community’s view upon their lives, their institutions, and their religion.