Arguments offered in support of the British Government's push to redefine marriage illustrate the illogical foundation on which the endeavor rests. In fact, the government's own arguments show the true danger that marriage will face if those trying to redefine it are successful.
For instance, Labour MP Kate Green says:
By recognizing and extending the definition of marriage to reflect today's greater openness towards, and recognition of, same-sex relationships, the legislation does not weaken the institution of marriage. On the contrary, it takes it forward, it strengthens it. It helps to perpetuate it.
First off, Green's comments admit a redefinition of marriage or, at the least, augmenting the current definition by "extending" it. By deductive thinking alone, one can see that this one admission means marriage, once redefined, will no longer be what it has been for centuries.
Secondly, Green says that redefining marriage "does not weaken the institution of marriage."
How can this be?
If you have a pot of gold – valuable beyond belief because of the scarcity and singularity of gold – what would be the outcome of mixing in coins that weren't as scarce or as singular in their quality?
Would arguments that it would be okay to "extend" the definition of gold, so as to include silver, nickel, and copper too, hold water? No. Because the moment gold ceases to be the genuine article it also ceases to be what centuries of civilizations have rested on – gold.
Yet Green would have you trade your gold for nickel and tell you that, by doing so, nothing is weakened. Who can believe such talk?
In fact, Green says that redefining marriage "strengthens" marriage and will "perpetuate it." How can a male same-sex couple perpetuate marriage? Can they procreate? Of course they can't. The truth is redefining marriage to include same-sex couples cripples marriage, rather than perpetuates it, and takes away what has always been the defining mark of a union of husband and wife for centuries – the birthing and rearing of children.
Under the new definition of marriage, the government's interest in the union will no longer be about procreation and mothers and fathers raising their children. Rather, it will only be about something the government has never had an interest in: sanctioning a relationship because it makes a person happy – no matter whom that relationship is with and no matter if that relationship is antithetical to what marriage has meant down through the ages.
We redefine marriage to our own detriment.