I don't find your notion in the posted article. You inserted the word only in error, and so your notion is in error. Try to substitute "fundamental purpose" for "only" and see if that makes sense to you.
Okay, if you’re gonna ignore the bigger argument and nit pick me, I’ll nit pick you and the author.
First, it’s absurd to say that the pill “severed” the relationship between marriage and procreation. At best, you can say it eroded it a little, but did not sever. There is still a whole lot of married procreating going on out there.
Second, the sub title of the article is “The Pill made same sex nuptials inevitable” is a provocative assumption, but one he cannot support except around the edges. What about condoms. What about the sponge. What about allowing infertile people to get married. What about diaphragms.
The pill is different from all of those situations, but they all prevent pregnancy as well. And the author doesn’t ever touch on that sufficiently...because to do so would weaken his dot connection.
There is also a lot of historical realities that are simply ignored...the idea that a wedding gave a man and woman permission to have sex and procreate is a gross generalization, given that the implication is that societies have never given such permission without a wedding.
And finally, you made a big deal about the pill and it being a chemical potion that killed a child. That’s a valid argument, but not one the article ever mentions. That’s a totally separate discussion. I bet you jumped into this debate based on that fact, and don’t even realize the article never even goes there. That’s why I said it’s irrelevant, and no doubt why you assumed I was pro pill. You stepped in heep big doodoo there buddy roe.
oh...another flaw in the article thesis? The author even quotes the Bible about “not good for man to be alone” and “one flesh” - and then ignores that in God’s first statement about marriage, procreation has nothing to do with it. The author thinks that statement makes his case, but actually, it weakens it.
Then there’s the idea that only the weakness of the institution of marriage has allowed gay marriage. I think that’s a stretch too. Gaystapo will do what they will do. In fact, one could say if marriage were even weaker, the gaystapo wouldn’t even worry about it.