Increasingly we hear on television erudite people say that marriage must be defended, protected from the evil that is upon it: the same-sex unions. So let us just that when you use the word "defend" it is assumed that there is something or someone who has suffered harm, physical or moral. In the case of an injured right is assumed that this right be infringed, with the result that natural law is no longer enjoy the party. In a nutshell we can say "who or what is damaged." So why talk about "defense of marriage"? If same-sex marriages were recognized in one day, this does not imply any negative consequences for heterosexual couples, a gay couple married does not mean a married heterosexual couple less. So is to miss the significance of the damage and consequently the value of "defense of marriage". A marriage between persons of the same sex is extremely opposed to what this union is not aimed at procreation, which is based on end, according to Catholics, marriage "natural." But if so then beyond a certain threshold age of marriage should be banned as too advanced age people can not biologically give birth to children. If we want to be consistent even a couple who discover after the marriage can not give birth to a son, causes sterility of one of the two partners would see the marriage annulled, but as I recall, it does not. The reasons are proposed in opposition to same-sex marriages should not be valid for the concept of "universal" of marriage, and not only when applied to the gay world? Down from the pedestal of ignorance and Realize that these illustrious opponents just trying to legitimize unnatural and unfounded argument that has no roots in the common sense of humanity, must offend the sensitivities of people saying that marriage is in danger and that therefore must be defended. The real danger for civil society are those who cry "wolf wolf" when in reality there is only one sheep horizon. We defend our rights and our freedom to be, defending what is now really on the line!
0 comments:
Post a Comment