Defining Marriage

Dear Parliamentarian,

Re-defining the legal definition of marriage

In the light of Natural Law and the Origin of Creation, I offer the following:

Natural Law:
"A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct."


  1. Parents have the natural duty to nurture, care for, and protect the welfare of their children.
  2. There is the natural injunction in the human heart and mind, to do only what is good and to avoid every evil.
  3. There is the natural injunction to seek the truth; always to determine the false and to reject the lie.

So, how does this help us to determine the rights and wrongs regarding
the question of the legitimacy, or otherwise, of same-gender relationships?

For me, when we view the conjugal unity of the male-female design of the faculties, with the faculty of each being designed with the other in mind,
to thereby allow each to make its own necessary half-contribution for the conceiving and formation of a new human life at its beginning, is for me,
to find the design to be absolutely stunning.

The intricacy and combined operations of all of the living physical factors involved in order to culminate in the creation of a new life (not to exclude all the surrounding environmental factors as well) leads to the inescapable conclusion that the whole creation process, can be nothing other than the work and capacity of a Symphonic Mind of incomprehensibly awesome Intelligence and Power.

So, how does this relate to Natural Law, this Natural Law we detect to be
written in our own hearts?

Is it not plain, that the Mind which designed and effected the process for our own creation, is also none other than the Creator and Author of the whole Environmental Creation of the Cosmos? This Origin of all, can we not detect,
is also clearly and necessarily, the Origin and Writer of the Natural Law written in our own hearts, this law which defines the lawful limits for all of our activities? It is for us to constantly use Its Light to enable us to always clearly determine what is permissible and what is, at all costs, to be avoided in the living of our lives.

Can we not detect then, that the right use of our sexual faculties is to be conducted always in accordance with the Nature of the faculties themselves; that is, that their right use is always to accord with their Male-Female Complementary Nature in conformity with their Origin's so obvious unitive-procreative design?

Is it not an intellectual confusion and offence to right-reason, to attempt to reconcile their use in terms of an unnaturally contrived, procreatively sterile, same-gender 'union'? Their usage in this way flies in the face of, and is completely at odds with the Origin's whole concept and intent for their intelligently designed natural usage. It is to war with the Origin Itself!

So, it is clear: the first offence with regard to same-gender liaisons, before any sexual engagement is attempted, is its intellectual offence to right-reason.
There can be no offence when the intellectual temptation presents, and is met with rejection; but, 'offence' is immediate in the moment intellectual consent is given. This same applies equally to all who give their consent, but who do not engage in the practices themselves. It is their consent, which allies their own hearts and minds to the morally culpable offences of those who do proceed to carry them out. And, it is the Natural Law which enjoins us all to flee, at any cost, from giving our consent to any practice which would fly in the face of its injunctions.

(All of this: the world needs to know. But, who will tell them? And, who will listen?)

Yours sincerely,

Alan Mitter