Homosexual “marriage” is a counterfeit that endangers civilization. To understand this, we must ask ourselves: What is the purpose of marriage?

The purpose of marriage is to ensure the creation of successor generations. Procreation and the rearing of children form the very heart of marriage. True marriage and its life-giving basis serve a very important function to the survival and well-being of civilization. Not only does it ensure numerical survival, it also ensures the emotional health of civilization — as available research has consistently shown that children thrive best in homes with both a father and mother.

At the root of the effort to redefine marriage is a growing culture of relativism that enshrines radical self-determination and grants equal weight to each individual’s definition of existence and morality. However, civilizations do not survive on such weak, decentralized foundations. A civilization’s survival depends greatly upon its cohesion as it pertains to culture and norms. As such, marriage is not a civil right, but rather a privilege for the benefit of civilization.

For this reason, marriage must remain rooted in the ability to bring forth new life. “Marriage” based merely on mutual affection will lead to a free-for-all, in which any union may be masqueraded as “marriage.”

In other words, to civilly legitimate homosexual “marriage” is to eventually have no clear definition of marriage at all. This will lead to continually declining birthrates, which have already fallen below replacement level in the United States and have been abysmally low in Europe for decades. The survival of our civilization depends upon marriage being a procreative union between a man and a woman.

Capt. Nicholas J. Beck

Forward Operating Base Union III, Iraq

Repeal is just another change

In response to the July 2 letter “Give options to straight GIs”: I would like to know where the writer gets his “facts” that “most people discharged under [“don’t ask, don’t tell”] are self-referrals.” I have yet to see these facts anywhere. I’m not sure how the writer speculates why they outed themselves, since only they know why.

It’s true that the majority of people in the military and the country don’t have a problem with homosexuals, but there are still those who refuse to let their ignorance go. If there are homosexuals abusing the system, that’s not really any different than heterosexuals who do the same. It’s not right in either situation.

No, the military should not give a “similar option” to heterosexual servicemembers. Once the repeal is finished, then no one will be able to abuse a regulation — not homosexuals, not heterosexuals who lie about being homosexual (it has happened). The repeal of the ban is not a “major change in the military agreement” we all sign. I have read through my contract and nowhere does it state that I have the option to get out if I disagree with any change in military policy. In fact, it states: “Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me.”

Bottom line is that there are a lot rules and regulations in the military that people don’t agree with but, when we sign up, we agree to them. A lot of homosexuals have been serving under this rule and didn’t like having to hide and lie, but they still served. Someday soon, they won’t have to and can continue to serve honorably while being treated with the same respect, along with their significant others, as heterosexual members and their partners.

Staff Sgt. Kelly Calder

Fort Meade, Md.

Migrated