Letter To My MP Regarding My Position On The Redefinition Of Marriage

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.

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.

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,