Home Page

Search Winona Post:
   GO   x 
Advanced Search
     
  Issue Date:  
  Between  
  and  
     
  Author:  
   
     
  Column / Category:  
   
     
  Issue:  
  Current Issue  
  Past Issues  
  Both  
   Help      Close     GO   Clear   
     
  Sunday November 23rd, 2014    

 Submit Your Event 
S M T W T F S


 

 

 
 

| PLACE CLASSIFIED AD | PLACE EMPLOYMENT AD |

| Home | Advertise with Us | Circulation | Contact Us | About Us | Send a Letter to the Editor |
 

In defense of marriage (10/24/2012)
From: Karl J. Weissing

SMU Freshman

In their letter to the Post last Wednesday, Dr. Carmen and Julie Scudiero quote the second line of our U.S. Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident” to defend gay and lesbian rights specifically with regards to happiness. They assert that the rights of every human to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are first principles in action. They further state that the right to happiness set forth in the Declaration is inclusive, thus gays and lesbians along with all sects, creeds, races, and orientations have this right to happiness.

The authors claim that all humans have this fundamental right to pursue happiness is correct. But for a creature to attain happiness it must act in accordance with its nature. Created by God not only with a body but also with a soul, when humans seek pleasure or happiness, they must also engage the powers of the soul in that quest.

For humans to be happy, they must act in accordance with their definite end. The definite end of sleeping is to rest the human body and soul. The definite end of eating is to nourish the body. By considering the physical human form and the overwhelming testimony of both biology and history, we can only conclude that the definite end of marriage is procreation as well as pleasure. Being gay or lesbian is not in accordance with human nature because such relations cannot possibly result in procreation.

The marriage amendment would maintain the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because by its nature, marriage cannot be otherwise. It is a logical nonsequitur that constitutional acknowledgement of the definition of marriage is discriminatory against gays and lesbians. It simply acknowledges the truth that, whatever else they may be, even committed gay and lesbian relationships cannot lead to or be defined as marriage.

Words represent truth. Attempting to redefine words to mean something they cannot will not change the underlying reality. A man and a woman may choose to marry. A man and a man (or a woman and a woman) cannot. They nevertheless remain free to pursue happiness according to their inclination. That is an issue which the marriage amendment does not begin to address.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence were right, that for all time humanity and individual humans have the right to pursue happiness, and the right to this quest for happiness will not be fully realized until the world gives due recognition to the inherent importance of truth.

 

 

   Copyright © 2014, Winona Post, All Rights Reserved.

 

Send this article to a friend:
Your Email: *
Friend's Email: *
 Submit 
 Back Next Page >>

 

  | PLACE CLASSIFIED AD | PLACE EMPLOYMENT AD |

| Home | Advertise with Us | Circulation | Contact Us | About Us | Send a Letter to the Editor |
 

Contact Us to
Advertise in the
Winona Post!