Whose mind is closed?

My belief set just got referred to as being a "bigot" again today. I have one major belief that gets this label. I believe that marriage is not something we can redefine as a society. I believe it falls under natural law, and therefore cannot be defined as whatever way the wind blows our society. Since it takes one man and one woman to make a family, I believe that marriage is the definition of that union.

Until someone can explain to me in a clear manner an opposing point of view, I will continue to hold that view. If marriage is not defined as one man and one woman, then the designation of two people in a union is arbitrary. Why only two? If the participants can be changed then the number can too. Others have argued that the aged and infertile couldn't get married based on it being about creating a family. Why not? They are still one man and one woman. The complementarity is still present. Whether or not it can actually produce a child is not the question. It is defining marriage that is the discussion, not whether or not all the parts are in working order. The structure for marriage is one man and one woman. My marriage that still can reproduce is interchangeable with my parents' who are past child-bearing years. It is not interchangeable with two people of the same sex. Complementarity is the foundation of life. The union of that complementarity is called marriage.

Now, from a purely legal standpoint there is an entirely expanded discussion. The nightmare that individuals currently face in defining next of kin just has to stop. No one should need a lawyer to say, "I designate this person or persons as my next of kin." A small simple filing fee for the document should suffice, and if the designation is reciprocal it needs only one document. I haven't personally dealt with it but there is also talk of people being prevented from hospital visitation, citing "family only." Again, that nightmare has to stop. I know many people who would rather have nothing to do with their "blood family." I know of Catholic converts whose families have authorized treatment completely against Catholic teaching, while a beloved, though unrelated Catholic stood by helplessly. That is the definition of cruelty.

Some would say that civil unions are the answer. (What was the question again?) Oh yes, redefining marriage. Civil unions are just a patronizing designation. Opposite sex people have no business in them either. They are used to mimic marriage. The original still works, a mimic will fail. If the number of people in a civil union is arbitrary, then it will undergo the same argument being foisted on marriage. Where do you draw the line?

That is the root of the entire conflict. Why are there only two people in marriage? I can give you the natural law reason. No one who has called me "closed minded" seems to want to face facts. If it is not one man and one woman, then the designation is arbitrary. There can be no law made, no particular union held as ideal if the line in the sand can be just swept away.