March 14 was a great day to be a sixth grade math teacher! My students and I celebrated Pi Day by exploring the characteristics of circles. I began class by standing at the board with a marker in my hand, asking, "What is a circle?"
"A shape with no edges!" responded one student.
I drew a squiggly blob on the board that had fingers sticking out of it; an absurd-looking shape that had no edges, but was as far from a circle as I could make it.
"No," they protested, "it has to be round!"
I drew a rounded figure that resembled a crescent.
An outpour of demands broke out. "Make it without vertices," "It has to be 2-dimensional," "It's not concave," "You know what a circle looks like, Miss Ulmer!"
Yet still, they could not define a circle. Finally, one student got a clue and looked it up in the back of the textbook: "The set of all points equidistant from a fixed center." Finally, I could use a compass to construct a true circle.
In all the posts, tweets, statuses, and discussions about "gay marriage" lately, I have noticed many people continuously throw out characteristics of marriage, yet never give a definition.
"Marriage is about love!"
That's true. It's also true that a circle has no edges. But "love" does not define marriage, just like "no edges" does not define a circle. Ellipses, cylinders, and spheres also have no edges. Other kinds of relationships are also about love.
"Marriage is when two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other!"
That's true. So is a set of twin sisters who love each other and want to always live together married? A group of close friends who run a business together? A father and his disabled son?
Well, I know of at least one institution that is not afraid to define marriage clearly:
State-recognized marriage would not exist if it weren't for the complementary nature of the union between man and woman, the procreative power that results from it, and the environment it provides for the rearing of new life. If we throw away the things that define marriage for sentiment and all-inclusiveness, we will be going down a path that is senseless.
A circle is important enough that I won't let my sixth-graders senselessly define it. The definition of marriage holds infinitely more weight, and I won't sit quietly while it is senselessly defined.
"A shape with no edges!" responded one student.
I drew a squiggly blob on the board that had fingers sticking out of it; an absurd-looking shape that had no edges, but was as far from a circle as I could make it.
"No," they protested, "it has to be round!"
I drew a rounded figure that resembled a crescent.
An outpour of demands broke out. "Make it without vertices," "It has to be 2-dimensional," "It's not concave," "You know what a circle looks like, Miss Ulmer!"
Yet still, they could not define a circle. Finally, one student got a clue and looked it up in the back of the textbook: "The set of all points equidistant from a fixed center." Finally, I could use a compass to construct a true circle.
In all the posts, tweets, statuses, and discussions about "gay marriage" lately, I have noticed many people continuously throw out characteristics of marriage, yet never give a definition.
"Marriage is about love!"
That's true. It's also true that a circle has no edges. But "love" does not define marriage, just like "no edges" does not define a circle. Ellipses, cylinders, and spheres also have no edges. Other kinds of relationships are also about love.
"Marriage is when two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other!"
That's true. So is a set of twin sisters who love each other and want to always live together married? A group of close friends who run a business together? A father and his disabled son?
"Just last week a debate opponent defined marriage as 'a legal institution with legal rights and legal responsibilities.' Well now, we know that cannot be. After all, a police department, an incorporated business, and even Congress fit that definition. Can any of these reasonably be called 'marriage?'" - Leila Miller, Catholic Exchange
Well, I know of at least one institution that is not afraid to define marriage clearly:
"...husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives." - Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae
State-recognized marriage would not exist if it weren't for the complementary nature of the union between man and woman, the procreative power that results from it, and the environment it provides for the rearing of new life. If we throw away the things that define marriage for sentiment and all-inclusiveness, we will be going down a path that is senseless.
A circle is important enough that I won't let my sixth-graders senselessly define it. The definition of marriage holds infinitely more weight, and I won't sit quietly while it is senselessly defined.
