The only reason I brought up my ONE historical example was to point out that one reason to get married was to carry on the bloodline, or procreation, as I see it. While I think this is valid, I think the historical examples and the traditional definition of marriage may have gotten muddled along the way due to me not writing an essay here but rather replying to this thread at intervals while reading other things on the net and changing my train of thought and then not going back over what I read.
Anyways, I'm trying to sort out my meaning. I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clearly I've articulated it thus far.
1. I'm for a traditional DEFINITION of marriage. Man and woman. That's all. I guess this is also a historical definition. Also, historically, this union produced babies, whether there was love or money or whatever else involved. I think this is one of a few important distinctions.
2. Although marriages fail so very often today and the historical/traditional definition is being trod upon every day, many, many marriages still create a child or children. A same sex couple is not able to create a child through natural means. (Please don't argue with me about surrogates, adoption, sperm clinics, etc. I want to restrict this to a very narrow view of how a child is created.)
Put these together, and I have just one of my arguments for distinction between them. I think it's valid and I think it's enough to defend myself against accusations of me being a homophobe or a bigot.
A marriage, barring medical issues, is capable of creating a child. A same sex union is not.
In order to put my reason for distinction another way, I would like to compare it to two other examples.
I was anticipating someone comparing my arguments to the segregation by race issues. "Separate but equal". I dont see it that way. I see it more like the difference between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalis. Neanderthals were the same species as humans and possibly lived together as equals, but it would be foolish to try to group them under one common name. The differences are too apparent. It's not the greatest example, but it rings true for me.
|