Marriage should support kids' well-being

Marriage is a social good (“Concept of marriage has evolved over time” by Ms Angeline Wong Hui Wei; last Thursday). 

It is the foundation of a strong society, promoting wealth and prosperity, while shaping the next generation by inculcating the right values in children. It creates an environment where children are protected, loved and nurtured.  It is in the interest of both government and society to promote it. 

Married couples who cannot have children suffer much anguish and private pain as they constantly experience infertility as an inability to fulfil a basic aspect of marriage. Their relationship is ordered towards having children, even if it is frustrated and kept from this fulfillment.

As emphasised by Mr Darius Lee in his letter last Wednesday (“Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined”), the Government recognises the pre-political institution of marriage not because it is interested in the romantic relationships of adults, but to support the right of every child to be raised by a father and a mother wherever possible. 

Unedited copy

I refer to the article "Concept of marriage has evolved over time", 9 July.

Marriage is a social good. It is the foundation of a strong society, promoting wealth and prosperity, while shaping the next generation by inculcating the right values in children. It creates an environment where children are protected, loved and nurtured.  It is in the interest of both government and society to promote it.

Married couples who cannot have children suffer much anguish and private pain as they constantly experience infertility as an inability to fulfill a basic aspect of marriage. Their relationship is ordered towards having children, even if it is frustrated and kept from this fulfillment.

For those who are voluntarily sterile, it is an intentional avoidance of that fulfillment.

Not every couple has children but every child has a father and a mother. 

In contrast, physical sterility is the natural order for homosexual couples, and is dictated by their sexual proclivities, which are in direct conflict with the possibility of natural procreation.

As emphasized by Mr Lee in his letter (Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined, 8 July), the government recognizes the pre-political institution of marriage not because it is interested in the romantic relationships of adults, but to support the right of every child to be raised by a father and a mother wherever possible.

If the concept of marriage is artificial and changes over time as Ms Wong claimed, why is she questioning about the barrier to same-sex 'marriage'?

If marriage is not a universal concept, what makes the concept of love universal? By Ms Wong's definition, there is no fixed concept, but every word and concept change according to one's mood and liking.

However, facts cannot be evolved.

In the submissions to US Supreme Court by four adult children raised by homosexual parents to oppose the legalization of same-sex 'marriage', one adult recounted how she was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk. The adults suffered sexual abuse from their parents and their homosexual partners, were subjected to sexual or gender confusion, being forced to approve certain sexual lifestyles, were exposed to pathogens due to their parents' promiscuity and saw the mental anguish, psychological impact and physical health risks of their multiple parents among the adverse effects of homosexuality.

Same sex 'marriage' treat children like traded commodities, purposely depriving them of their biological mother/ and or biological father and roots of origin. Children lose forever knowing and relating to their natural mom and/or dad. Children's identity and security are robbed forever.