and its crux time again... why do you think that two people of the same gender cannot embody the entirety of what marriage is supposed to be?
Probably- because they arent even remotely the same thing to begin with - allow me to illustrate just the differences in design-
The 2 unions are fundamentally and functionally different- Let us examine the differences between marriage and same sex union:
The inherant right we are discussing regarding same sex unions, is the right of cohabitation. That right is an inherant right from Liberty- I support this right. Lets say it again: I support the right of same sex couples to live together, as long as they both shall live.
The right of marriage, is a natural right, and is the cornerstone of society- by natural design. It is 1) the purest model of government through the nuclear family, 2) it is the model of education for society, 3) it is the model of procreation for our race, 4) it is the model for love and happiness through natural complementing attributes, and is 5) the model for lifelong social fulfillment.
Let us examine each step and contrast it with same sex marriage so we can see the difference.
1) It is the purest model of government through the structure of the nuclear family. This structure highlights the natural design of Mom and Dad, and the children- each designed specifically for different but necessary purposes inside the nuclear family, for efficient governance. It is also noteworthy, that fidelity is also a characteristic in this model of governance- in that the nuclear family model is built around the same Mom and Dad remaining in the position of authority while raising the family. The natural model is about long term, committed unions of man and woman- to carry out this model of natural governance on the nuclear family. This model is not duplicated naturally by same sex couples- indeed it is impossible for them to create their own nuclear family, by design. The natural design for the family unit, is first a mother and a father- through which the nuclear family model begins. There is a huge difference in the design of the 2 kinds of couples- this points us in the direction of the natural right of marriage- that it is by design, beginning with a man and a woman. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.
2) It is the model for education in our society. The natural design is that the parents would raise their children- i.e. educate them in life. Parents have a responsibility to educate their children. The natural model follows that children come from and are governed by a man and a woman – husband and wife-. It is easy to see that the natural right of marriage stems from this natural design, of governance, and education, of our race. Same sex couples can not have children naturally, and this is by design. Thus, we see the natural model stands against same sex couples in the area of marriage rights, and their natural ability to educate their children. Rather, the same sex couple has the right of cohabitation- with nature standing against the same sex union in the marriage capacity- in fact, it is a physical impossibility. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.
3) It is the model for the procreation of our race. The natural right and design of marriage from the Law of Nature, shows us that our race is procreated through this union. Our race and society itself exists because of this union and the natural design of procreation. While it is true, that any 2 members of the opposite sex can procreate- there are 2 things about this that need to be noted 1) they are still the opposite sex, and 2) as was noted in the Model of Government breakout of the Law of Nature- the family model follows the committed long term relationship of husband and wife in marriage- not a one night stand or a fling of convenience. So we see from the natural design, that our race is procreated through long term commitments of a man to a woman, and that same sex couples can not do this, by design. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.
4) It is the model for love and happiness through natural complementing attributes. While it is true, that we as humans can love each other in many ways- brother to brother, parents to children, lover to lover- we can note the natural design for love and happiness through scrutiny of the natural model. Men and women complement each other in their differences- mentally, physically, and spiritually. The kind of union that is set aside as marriage in the above examples lends itself to a life of love and happiness through the fulfillment of the natural model- man and a woman, raising a nuclear family. It is also true that couples can be in love and feel fulfilled without raising a family- yet the natural model still offers this specific experience of love, happiness, and fulfillment by design to a man and woman in marriage. It is true that there are exceptions to happy families, and some families break apart- the design and fulfillment of raising a healthy family by a man and a woman bound through commitment and fidelity, is only available to a man and a woman, naturally. The Law of Nature, stands against same sex couples from being able to partake of this fulfillment in the natural, and only by design.
5) It is the model for lifelong social fulfillment. It is the natural design of complementing attributes between men and women that brings specific areas of fulfillment to light. Only a man and woman, through the above points in the natural model can create a family legacy and their own family community. It is through the nuclear procreation of our race that parents eventually become grandparents and great grandparents- making possible natural lifelong social fulfillment in addition to a lifetime of friends and other standard social acquaintances. Additionally, a lifetime spent with a complementary mate makes for another social fulfillment that is available only by natural design- as men and women complement each other physically, mentally, and spiritually. While same sex couples can live their lifetime together- they can not create a lifelong social fulfillment- a legacy of family, that the natural model creates by design. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.
What we can see from the breakout above is that there is a vast difference between the types of unions that we are arguing here. It is often the case, that people argue that same sex couples are not getting equal rights- which is just not true. The breakout above, clearly demonstrates that the 2 kinds of unions- marriage, or same sex union- are completely, and entirely different. It shows that marriage, is a natural right, and by design carries great benefit to society as a whole- in fact it is the foundation of society. Where when we look at same sex unions- we find that they are not even remotely close to the same thing.
So, if they are not the same thing, what are we to do about it? Well, the definition of marriage and the natural right to marriage do not change. Homosexuals, are still free to enter into marriage (characterized by the enumerated 5 characteristics as noted above), but if this is not what they want out of life, not entering into such a union is a choice. We can also see that entering into the DIFFERENT kind of union- same sex union- carries with it an entirely different set of social characteristics, and benefits to society- namely that it is not marriage, nor does it carry the same benefits.
We have discussed that married people do not have the right to get special benefits under the law, this is a true statement. In the same vein, if benefits are already offered for people to be married- then those that are pushing to get the same benefits for the same model- should be required to demonstrate that they are equal, and thus due the same benefits. Since we have already destroyed the assertion that same sex unions are the same thing as marriage unions in terms of how they benefit society, we can safely move to the position that the argument of equal representation under the law, is fulfilled by the fact that we are not talking about the same thing to begin with.
Since we are not talking about the same kind of union here- we now need to establish what is this second union? Is there a right involved here? Well, yes there is, and that is the right of cohabitation- derived from Liberty- in that as free people, we are allowed to live our lives freely, so long as we are not infringing on another’s right. Does this include the right to be given the same benefits that are not earned through marriage? No, it does not- we have demonstrated the striking differences between the 2 unions, and it is a fact- that same sex unions do not remotely come close to the same arrangement as marriage does, to society.
This leaves us in a quandary then- what to do with those that are screaming for the benefits applied to the marriage license, to now be applied to civil unions- a completely different kind of union than marriage? In my estimation- one would need to prove that this right first exists- this new right, that is not characterized as the natural right of marriage- but rather on 2 people who want to live together. The marriage benefits become a detriment to society when they are applied to same sex couples- because there is no return on investment to society- the benefits are now – unfounded.
So- in my estimation- it is either do away with the marriage benefits, or fight same sex marriage/civil unions as the lie they are. I believe it is a matter of principle to fight the lie either way, and a matter of precedent to fight for the benefits. The benefactor of marriage benefits is society- this battle is truly, a lose lose situation- by fighting it, those ignorant of marriage and natural rights will rise up against you, or you give up the benefits to marriage- and society loses. Or worse- same sex marriage/civil unions win the day, and redefine what marriage is, create a new right that doesn’t exist, and get paid for something they can never provide.
G