Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
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?
|
There is a reason that argument was over ruled as it presumes procreation as the reason to block gay marriage, why marry when you can't have kids. The charter adapted when needed.