Sun | Jan 16, 2022

Gays have right to sex, but not marriage

Published:Saturday | July 19, 2014 | 12:00 AM


Your guest columnist Patrick White, in his article of Sunday, July 13 ('Taliban Church spewing hate against gays'), thinks it necessary to try to discredit the Christian Church in his effort to defend homosexual conduct and gay marriage. The Church has survived many such efforts throughout history and will continue to do so long after he has departed the scene.

Without getting into a debate as to whether scientific and archaeological discoveries confirm or disprove biblical revelations, I state unequivocally that any objective observation of our universe and the life in it must lead to the conclusion that there is amazingly intricate DESIGN displayed throughout its entirety.

As an engineer, he should know that design requires a designer and does not come about by accident. This is not high science, but common sense.

I further state, without fear of contradiction, that male-female sexual interaction was designed essentially for procreation, and the act being pleasurable is merely because of the benevolence of the designer and further evidence that encouragement to procreate was part of the designer's plan. Had it been painful, human and animal life would have been long extinct.

The fact that 'non-procreational' types of sexual contact is practised and that we have found ways to restrict fertilisation does not take away from the original purpose of sexual intercourse, which was procreation and marriage, by extension.


Homosexual intercourse is, therefore, an aberration and deviates from the original objective of the design. While it is clear that we don't fully understand the scientific causes of this deviation, I don't believe that homosexuals 'choose' their status any more than the rest of us 'choose' to be heterosexual, and therefore should not be made criminals under the law.

The law is there to protect the individual's rights and to prevent the infringement of those rights. Homosexual relations between consenting adults does not infringe the rights of anyone and should not be considered illegal. Such 'unions' should enjoy the rights and privileges of similar 'common-law' unions, such as the right to property sharing and even child-rearing, but they cannot be 'married' based on the standards and teachings of the Christian church.

Therefore, pastors and Christian marriage officers should not be forced by law to perform such marriages since that would infringe on their own right to freedom of religious belief, regardless of how "quaint and archaic" people like Patrick White may think it to be.