To the editor:
In order to divert attention away from the legitimate points brought up by those who support one man/one woman marriage, those who want to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals often bring up other matters which obscure the point. They say, "Look at all the abuses of traditional marriage such as adultery and physical and emotional abuse within marriage." They point to the high divorce rates. They point to "morally decrepit individuals" in the Catholic priesthood who have sex with little boys. They point to proponents of traditional marriage who go to the extreme and are physically and verbally abusive in their expression of their view.
No one is condoning the abuses of traditional marriage or the immoral behaviors of those who are unmarried. We do not support extremists. Those abuses and behaviors are to be condemned. The point which some would cloud by calling attention to abuses is the fact that much good can come from traditionally defined marriage.
As an illustration, there is nothing inherently wrong with fruits and vegetables because some become rotten or moldy. They were good to begin with, and we will continue to make use of those which are good. They provide necessary nourishment. Unspoiled fruits and vegetables are an important part of building good, healthy bodies. Similarly, there is nothing inherently wrong with traditional marriage. It brings much good to society. Solid one man/one women marriages are the foundation of a good, healthy society.
That is not the case with what some would call homosexual "marriages." They are based on something which is morally rotten so they cannot serve to promote the good health of our society. Deterioration of our basic freedoms will result - as our public education system promotes that which we feel is not appropriate for our children, as we lose the freedom to parent and bring up our children with the values we feel are so important, as freedoms are taken away from churches and small business owners to follow their consciences (church leaders, photographers, caterers, florists, daycare providers, adoption agencies, and others who provide services). This all may take time, but it is inevitable. If anyone doubts it, look to Canada and to Massachusetts.
Calling this homophobic, bigoted hate speech is a smoke screen since we do not hate or have a fear of the homosexual. However, we cannot afford to be tolerant of something which will adversely affect our society. Vote YES to preserve one woman/one man marriage and promote the good health of Minnesota's society for future generations.