Below is a link to the best argument I have seen yet on the issue of same sex marriage. We really have no idea what we are doing when we try to reinvent reality, But that is exactly what must be done if you are to consider same sex marriage the equivalent of the traditional definition of marriage. Here are some of the salient points:
The essential major premise of the SCOTUS progressives is simply this: that one is to be prohibited by law from publicly and effectively acknowledging natural order as contributing anything normatively foundational to morals and law beyond "the nature of consent". The progressivist justices of SCOTUS now occupy a preserve of reductionism which dictates (as they say themselves) that those who differ with them can have no rational basis for doing so.
A homosexual couple is not accidentally but essentially infecund. If this fact does not bear upon access to marriage, then the fact of a man's paternity cannot be a legal ground for not recognizing him as a mother.
If the only criterion is lifelong commitment and love, then who are the members of the Supreme Court to say that a group of 50 cannot love one another sufficiently to marry? If the law exists to regulate spiritual affinities, then why shouldn't profound and lifelong affinity annealing the friendship of 50 be as valid as that which effects the union of two? Why should glee clubs and football teams be arbitrarily denied the dignity of marriage,
if marriage is so "content-neutral" with respect to the relation of biological parenthood and children that no individual of a group can be refused the "right" to marry, other criteria are clearly equally subject to arbitrary variance. If it is no longer a question of the state interest in promoting the relation of biological parents and children then there is no reason whatsoever why groups of persons as such should be absolutely prohibited from marrying. Of course, there are such reasons: but they are a function of nature and if we are not to discriminate owing to nature and the fundamental historical character of the institution of marriage is to be a mere object of social reconstruction, number is arguably less fundamental a natural consideration than the opposite sex nature of marital union (although clearly both are fundamental!).
If it is said that the reason is that marriage must be limited to "2" what is the ratio or ground for this judgment--a reason that as progressivists always insist must be neither religious nor procreative?
Many SCOTUS justices simply do not understand why accidentally infertile couples are reasonably distinguished from essentially infertile couples. They cannot distinguish between a peach tree and a stone, because a peach tree may have accidental impediment to bringing forth fruit and still be essentially ordered to bringing forth fruit: but a stone is not essentially ordered to bringing forth fruit.
https://thomistica.squarespace.com/commentary
The essential major premise of the SCOTUS progressives is simply this: that one is to be prohibited by law from publicly and effectively acknowledging natural order as contributing anything normatively foundational to morals and law beyond "the nature of consent". The progressivist justices of SCOTUS now occupy a preserve of reductionism which dictates (as they say themselves) that those who differ with them can have no rational basis for doing so.
A homosexual couple is not accidentally but essentially infecund. If this fact does not bear upon access to marriage, then the fact of a man's paternity cannot be a legal ground for not recognizing him as a mother.
If the only criterion is lifelong commitment and love, then who are the members of the Supreme Court to say that a group of 50 cannot love one another sufficiently to marry? If the law exists to regulate spiritual affinities, then why shouldn't profound and lifelong affinity annealing the friendship of 50 be as valid as that which effects the union of two? Why should glee clubs and football teams be arbitrarily denied the dignity of marriage,
if marriage is so "content-neutral" with respect to the relation of biological parenthood and children that no individual of a group can be refused the "right" to marry, other criteria are clearly equally subject to arbitrary variance. If it is no longer a question of the state interest in promoting the relation of biological parents and children then there is no reason whatsoever why groups of persons as such should be absolutely prohibited from marrying. Of course, there are such reasons: but they are a function of nature and if we are not to discriminate owing to nature and the fundamental historical character of the institution of marriage is to be a mere object of social reconstruction, number is arguably less fundamental a natural consideration than the opposite sex nature of marital union (although clearly both are fundamental!).
If it is said that the reason is that marriage must be limited to "2" what is the ratio or ground for this judgment--a reason that as progressivists always insist must be neither religious nor procreative?
Many SCOTUS justices simply do not understand why accidentally infertile couples are reasonably distinguished from essentially infertile couples. They cannot distinguish between a peach tree and a stone, because a peach tree may have accidental impediment to bringing forth fruit and still be essentially ordered to bringing forth fruit: but a stone is not essentially ordered to bringing forth fruit.
https://thomistica.squarespace.com/commentary
