This notion could be easily worded better, but it is often expressed with these words to appeal to some kind of ethical absolute. Note it is vague, and does not distinguish between religious or civil "Right" or civil or religious marriage.
This argument appeals to everyone's romantic desires, and is popular amongst young people because, only a few years before, they would be required to get their parent's permission, and currently many of them might still be dependent on their parents to some extent.
But, if we take the argument as worded here, do we really EVER get to marry (religious or civil) whom we chose? Obviously, it is not always permitted: 1) Close relatives are not permitted to marry in some States. 2) One can't always convince the chosen person to consent. 3) Marriage is not only about love, disregarding family responsibilities, though Hollywood presents it as such. 4) Religious marriage is free to marry two persons, but not necessarily as civil marriage, depending on the State. 5) Entering Marriage is not intended as something you can change your mind about, depending on the vows. It's not like you can marry whom you chose, and divorce, every other week(!) 6) Marriage is supported by the government because one man and one woman are anatomically complementary, and because they can naturally and frequently engender (not just adopt) children, whom they are then REQUIRED to feed, discipline for their own good, care for, school, etc. Couples of homosexual behavior can not engender a child by themselves. If one of persons in the couple engenders a child with a third party, and wish to adopt the child for themselves, through some contract, it becomes a matter of adoption, not automatic parenthood as in the case of a natural marriage with child.
So, watch out for the emotional appeal of some of these arguments trying to change the definition of natural marriage. Worded differently, the argument could have some weight. As is, it does not. But it is often voiced that way.
This notion could be easily worded better, but it is often expressed with these words to appeal to some kind of ethical absolute. Note it is vague, and does not distinguish between religious or civil "Right" or civil or religious marriage.
ReplyDeleteThis argument appeals to everyone's romantic desires, and is popular amongst young people because, only a few years before, they would be required to get their parent's permission, and currently many of them might still be dependent on their parents to some extent.
But, if we take the argument as worded here, do we really EVER get to marry (religious or civil) whom we chose? Obviously, it is not always permitted:
1) Close relatives are not permitted to marry in some States.
2) One can't always convince the chosen person to consent.
3) Marriage is not only about love, disregarding family responsibilities, though Hollywood presents it as such.
4) Religious marriage is free to marry two persons, but not necessarily as civil marriage, depending on the State.
5) Entering Marriage is not intended as something you can change your mind about, depending on the vows. It's not like you can marry whom you chose, and divorce, every other week(!)
6) Marriage is supported by the government because one man and one woman are anatomically complementary, and because they can naturally and frequently engender (not just adopt) children, whom they are then REQUIRED to feed, discipline for their own good, care for, school, etc. Couples of homosexual behavior can not engender a child by themselves. If one of persons in the couple engenders a child with a third party, and wish to adopt the child for themselves, through some contract, it becomes a matter of adoption, not automatic parenthood as in the case of a natural marriage with child.
So, watch out for the emotional appeal of some of these arguments trying to change the definition of natural marriage. Worded differently, the argument could have some weight. As is, it does not. But it is often voiced that way.