Posted on 06/20/2025 8:20:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges (federally mandating “marriage equality”), it’s proper to ask whether same-sex marriage is a good idea. One reason to think that it’s not is the existence of an epistemic oddity, an oddity which strongly undermines any argument for same-sex marriage (hereafter “SSM”). The oddity in question is characterized by what may be called an "underdetermination asymmetry."
Start with the following very simple observation.
There are two ultimate positions in the SSM debate, and only two. On the one hand, there’s love or care as the basis of marriage, as in the view of SSM’s supporters. On the other hand, there’s procreation as the basis of marriage, as in the view of traditional marriage’s defenders. Any apparent exceptions will turn out to be folded into either love or procreation -- for example, commitment, which is parasitic on love and/or procreation. (I’ll henceforth ignore care -- the radical marriage reformers’ favorite criterion of intimate personal relationships -- because it cashes out similarly to love.)
The reason why SSM is supported by so many people is that everyone can see the salience of love. If marriage exists for romantic or erotic love rather than for procreation, as many people think, and if David and Ted love each other, then why not let them marry in a civil ceremony, with the full approval of the state? Conversely, if marriage exists for procreation rather than love, then why grant civil marriage at all to same-sex couples, who can’t procreate?
This is where the idea of underdetermination can help us to see the truth about marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Some months after Kennedy retired, I searched for and found an interview of him with NPR.
He admitted his vote in Obergefell had nothing to do with the Constitution.
He simply thought that children in fag/dyke households should have married guardians.
We do not hate Scotus enough.
Call it what it is: Counterfeit marriage.
Two of the same sex cannot be married. Ask the One who created it.
My point is that a civil contract — even for something as extraneous as a $25 retail purchase — is more enduring under the law than a marriage contract. Go figure.
Stop calling it marriage. They’re simple contracts...nothing more.
If you want to have the terms of a civil union on a piece of paper, you need to meet with a lawyer (prenuptial agreement).
Otherwise, the government shouldn't get involved.
We do need to take a census by 2030. We should count every person living in a home but we shouldn't record their martial status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.