Empowering young Australians to be a clear Christian voice
The key in this debate is this: how would allowing same-sex couples the same rights as everybody else diminish the institution of marriage?
Clearly it would do nothing to diminish the institution of marriage. In fact, if anything it would strengthen the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, all the Senator said to address “the key in the debate” was the statement above. In other words, she failed to address the key of the debate.
Not having understood the essence of marriage – and how removing gender from its definition would fundamentally alter it – she did not see the purpose of keeping marriage between a man and a woman.
She could not see how changing the definition would diminish marriage, nor did she explain how the strengthening of marriage would happen.
This brings to mind GK Chesterton’s thoughts on reform:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
GK Chesterton, The Thing
We found a good post on the meaning of marriage here.