Friday, July 11, 2008

The Institution of Marriage





I've just had a thought on all this LGBT activism that's pushing so hard for faux-marriage.





Is Marriage (classical, 1 man/1 woman matrimony) an institution?

Or is it not?

For if it is an institution, then the circumstance of one's sexual orientation should obviously factor into that person's decision to get married. Right?

Stay with me here... there's more.

If a homosexual does not wish to indulge the option of forming a union with a person of the opposite sex, for the purposes of having children and raising a family with that person, then are they at that point making a decision to abstain from an institution? Clearly, yes. At least this particular institution.

Now if that same homosexual prefers to partner with someone who is alike in gender, then on first account the option of procreation is summarily forfeited. Therefore, in order to raise a family our same-sex couple would need to participate in some sort of institution that could facilitate such an endeavor. This is where science or adoption comes to the rescue, apparently.

But it remains that said homosexual has made a conscious and deliberate choice to avoid the institution of classical Marriage. Homosexuality may or may not be a choice, but entering into the institution of Marriage definitely is. (except for arranged marriages...)

Now let's pretend that Marriage is not a valid institution. This being the case, then our homosexual couple is free to enter into a union consisting of... what exactly? And without a facilitating institution, how would it be possible to raise a family?

Now I mentioned science and adoption earlier, but isn't that just cheating? And what basis is that to start a family on? Really! A family unit founded on the principle of cheating? That should do real well for establishing moral principles! but i digress..

Returning to my point, it can easily be established that legally and socially recognized Marriage, between 1 man and 1 woman, is in fact an institution whose sole purpose is to facilitate the creation of a family, which involves procreation. Any refutation of this would be fallacious for the following reason: humans typically are not monogamous creatures unless engaged in child-rearing. They just aren't. And yet like many other species in the animal kingdom, humans are quite often predisposed to mate for life with a very limited number of partners, and more often than not only 1 at that. Not to mention the biological drive to procreate contributes to the formation of relationships, for the purpose of sexual and emotional gratification. These relationships will naturally gain solvency, otherwise the survival of the species would be in jeopardy. Hence a definition of this institution can be established. We have historically named that definition "Marriage"

So as the biological drive to procreate is intentionally misdirected towards the wrong gender, and a non-procreative relationship is established, it follows that the aforementioned institution cannot take form. And without that institution, there is no "marriage".

It really is that simple.

No comments: