• BlogRSS

  • Defending the traditional institution of marriage (one man + one woman) based on what’s best for the children is a valid argument in favour of the traditional institution of marriage. Unfortunately the 2002 Act of Parliament legalising same sex adoption renders this line of argument politically a non starter. I think we now have to defend the traditional understanding of marriage without appealing to what’s best for the children, because there’s zero chance of overturning the 2002 same-sex adoption act.


    Some areas for defending the traditional institution of marriage are:


    1. Men and women are equal in dignity, equal in rights, equal in value, but different. Their difference begins at the visible level of physiology, but goes right down into their emotions, their psychology, their needs and desires. These levels are not disjointed from their physiology but interconnected.


    2. When a man and a woman give themselves to one another in marriage, the way each gives himself/herself to the other is different and complimentary. This can be seen most obviously on the physiological level, the beautiful complimentarity of their physiology that makes the consummation of their marriage possible. But again the way in which they give themselves to one another goes beneath the visible level of physiology and connects with what is deepest in the male and female person, including the emotional and psychological levels.


    3. The total and mutual self-giving that we call marriage is founded on a complimentarity of the sexes that draws deeply from the depths of what it means to be male and female.


    4. The consummation of their mutual self-giving in the marital act that brings to completion the state of marriage is only possible physiologically between a man and a woman.


    Your thoughts are welcomed but will be moderated to reduce the likelihood of causing offence.

    Read more ›