[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

How about this, from the same Egan v Canada decision I mentioned above.



Source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1995/1995scr...5scr2-513.html

The Supreme Court has since ruled in ways that would overrule this text, but it remains a cogently stated argument.

Thank you for that. It is cogent, yes, but I do not believe that the ruling presents a good argument against same-sex marriage. In the first place, it presumes that the traditional definition of marriage is somewhat arbitrary in its assertion that "marriage is by nature heterosexual" on the premise that procreation is its primary function. Second, I also do not believe that it does present "the biological and social realities" of the current form of the institution in the Western world.

Again, if the function and purposes of marriage change over time, should our definitions not also change with them?