Dear Ms Theresa
Pearce,
Thank you for your
letter referenced :LRE/AKINO2013 dated on the 16th of October 2012.
I quite appreciate your personal reply to me, giving me your practical reasons why you felt the government should proceed with the redefinition of marriage. As a result of the immediate reactions and the imminent decision of the government regarding this, I deem it fit to respond to your letter and to proffer my personal reasons as to why I believe marriage should not be redefined and the practical option I feel are available towards avoiding discrimination in the society.
I quite appreciate your personal reply to me, giving me your practical reasons why you felt the government should proceed with the redefinition of marriage. As a result of the immediate reactions and the imminent decision of the government regarding this, I deem it fit to respond to your letter and to proffer my personal reasons as to why I believe marriage should not be redefined and the practical option I feel are available towards avoiding discrimination in the society.
Experience and
studies have shown that stability of home, society and nation is more
sustainable under a properly instituted marriage and that all the other various
forms of relationships do not really hold grounds in relation to family life,
the society and its stability.
If we both agree on the statement above, our point of mutual departure shall then be that of reaching an agreement about what actually constitutes a properly defined marriage, and we shall try to see if we can actually, whimsically include gay marriage as part of this institutionalized marriage criteria, as is actually being proposed, and this in conscience, is what I would like to discuss on.
If we both agree on the statement above, our point of mutual departure shall then be that of reaching an agreement about what actually constitutes a properly defined marriage, and we shall try to see if we can actually, whimsically include gay marriage as part of this institutionalized marriage criteria, as is actually being proposed, and this in conscience, is what I would like to discuss on.
Ms Pearce, would you
rather agree with me that, instead of the government going to the root and
origin of marriage, and attempting to upturn it without any regards for its
anthropological significance and its cultural foundations, wouldn't it be more accommodating
to refine civil partnership, and perhaps 'upgrade' the Gay partnership as a
'higher' status of civil relationship, rather than making marriage a mortal
culprit and upturning all its moral significance by the introduction of gay
marriage?
Not that this is a
good alternative, but at least, it would in a way leave a measure of
compromise, rather than leaving the government entirely to the caprices of
venturing into a project and decision whose repercussion would be unsustainable
and detrimental to the future and posterity at large. We have already made
enormous mistakes with the environment and the economy, and an attempt to
tamper with marriage would also constitute a gross misconduct which would
simply create a more hardened future for us and for our children.
I believe in the
freedom, uniqueness and equality of humanity, but a freedom without order and boundary
historically has proved disastrous and inimical to humanity, and attempts to
tamper with these laws have often resulted into deeper chaos for the world.
That is the basis of my objection towards legislating on the redefinition of
marriage.
My personal position is that homosexuality is a disorder which needs to be approached and tackled as a social ill; but this letter is not to reiterate my personal position on this, but it is a cry towards the emancipation of creation and humanity from impending disasters which could come about as a result of decisions borne more out of levity than deep personal convictions on the part of the government.
I'm not talking simply
from faith perspective, but also from simple reasoning and logic. The natural
law of creation is such that it would accommodate humanity and make the
distribution of the world's goods an abundance, and attempts at tampering
negatively with these natural laws have always caused calamity for man, and the
height of this tamper is one which affects the root cause and structural
capacity of bringing forth humanity into the world, which is the institution of
marriage between man and woman. This diabolical attempt of the government
towards the sacrilegious fondling with the sanctity of the naturalness of
marriage is thereby extremely inimical.
A constitution
called love, which carries with it all its natural intricacies, but has no
means of producing fruits of its own volition does not seem to me to be a right
foundation to bequeath the future. If humanity presumes to foster of its own
accord, the limitation of love to a stagnant and 'fruitless' relationship like
Gay marriage, then I believe that this tamper with the law of nature and its
cosmological being would constitute an intrinsically evil action and the
aftermath can only be negative. The fruitfulness of couples is what we must
encourage and this happens in a well defined marriage between a man and a woman.
I have gay friends,
and they are nice, pleasant and good people, but this reason does not make me
justify actions which are essentially not contributing to the welfare of
humanity. I am also aware about those who have decided to sacrifice their sexual
energies and have channeled these energies into making the world a better
place, or about those who desire the fruitfulness of matrimony but due to their
physiological constituents are unable to do so. But creating a legalized
capacity towards sexual gratifications without a direct means of procreation is
an illusionist responsibility; and the sole cause of portending material gains
should not warrant the rewriting of an ancient plausible custom.
The fact that I have
a craving that is difficult to curtail does not warrant me justifying it, and
the fact that I have a habit I struggle against does not necessitate anyone
discriminating against me. I shall support the gays in their quest for human
rights, but I shall object them, to the last towards the justification of their
acts.
Legalizing gay
marriage is anthropologically incorrect and is unnatural. It would ultimately
prove inefficient and incapable of reforming society for good and would
end up straining family life the more.
Thank you for your
time and I hope you would be kind enough to take these reason into cognition
when you are presenting the stance of our constituency towards redefinition of
marriage.
Yours faithfully,