The definition of marriage is characterized as a natural institution that is formed by the pairing of a man and woman for the primary purpose of creating and raising children. This relationship is permanent until the death of one of the spouses.
As we have seen the nature of a paring of a man and woman is fundamentally different that of a pairing of same-sex partners. By the nature of what a man is and what a woman is there is a distinct difference in an opposite-sex pair, both in terms of the partners themselves but also the unique nature of the relationship that exists between a man and woman vs. same-sex partners.
Adding to this is the nature of sexual relations, which their primary purpose is for the generation of children. Without the complementary nature of the man and woman sexual relations lack their primary purpose. Because of this any sexual relations become sterile, and hinder the actual function of the relations.
Finally the nature of the family naturally entails a male-female pairing as the natural method by which a family is created. Left to their natural end a male-female paring with sexual relations leads to children. This unit becomes a family.
The facts about marriage naturally lead us to an obvious conclusion, that the nature of marriage naturally precludes a same-sex paring. In other words, a same-sex marriage is a non-existent entity. Thus to say that advocates are denying the "rights" of same-sex pairings is do declare that same-sex pairs have a right to something that doesn't exist. But this is absurd.
With the nature of marriage defined properly there is still the issue of law. Even if it is the case that same-sex marriage doesn't actually exist, what is the harm of creating a "legal fiction" to make those who would dispute this happy? This we will cover next...
No comments:
Post a Comment