Re-defining Marriage

Change, they say, is the only constant in life. So people change everything from names to appearances and everything in between everyday and no questions are asked. But recent attempts by some people to change the definition of marriage in some parts of the world takes the icing!

Some people have decided that the age-old definition of marriage as a union between a “man and a woman” is no longer appropriate because it leaves out those of them with a special sexual orientation. They have struggled, with some degree of success, to re-define marriage as a union “between two people”. No problem.

My only grouse in this matter is that most of those involved in this so-called “same-sex marriages” are those who have raised families in conventional marriages and do not require any more children. That leaves a sour taste in the mouth because these people want to eat their cake and still have it. If a man (or woman) prefers to marry another man (or woman) then the “woman” or “man” among them should be able to figure out how to carry a foetus for 9 months if they decide to have babies! The corollary here is that these same-sex marriages, of whatever permutation, are not intended to produce babies which is just as well because those of us in the age-old conventional marriages are over-populating the world with our activities.

My unsolicited advise to all those Churches which condone same-sex marriages is that any couple above the age of 25 should not be “united”. If same-sex marriage is such a beautiful union, then why wait till you are 55 when you would have had all the children you require in life?

Tata, everybody

Napoleon