This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Marriage - two viewpoints

SalGagliano's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by SalGagliano

The issue has nothing to do with "the Church" or "Religion". Those are meaningless distractions from the actual nature of the question, which is anthropological. A society's first and foremost interest is by definition, it's own propagation. Stray dogs can "make babies", but those babies must be raised to be healthy (mentally as well as physically) productive adults in order for the society to have continuity. Consequently, long ago, the fundamental societal building block organically coalesced from pairings of individual men to individual women, as observable reality clearly demonstrated that this was the most efficient and effective means of accomplishing this. "Marriage" is therefore not some invention of or bestowment from the State; it's simply a recognition of what already exists in nature (consider "common law" marriages, for example). Now, it may fairly be pointed out that some marriages - those in which one or both of the parties may be sterile, impotent or advanced in age - have no possibility of producing and raising children. However, in order to accommodate those situations, the definition of "marriage" - in a legal sense as well as in the public lexicon - does not have to be changed or altered. Such is not the case with "gay marriage" (an oxymoronic term if there ever was one). "gay marriage" has no natural basis, for it serves no group evolutionary strategy or purpose, and is therefore not a "marriage" at all. It's simply a rationalization concocted for purposes of providing self-gratification for the individuals involved. Nature always trumps human rationalizations - if science has taught us anything, it's taught us that much ...

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:51:33 UTC | #927045