While there exists a natural right to form marriages, and while we have a right to form those marriages without government interference (a negative right), we do not have the right to government recognition of our marriages (a positive right). The State regulates marriage because it is in their best interest to manage the procreative potential of opposite sex couples, not because they have a moral obligation to do so. The institution of marriage is a natural union that exists prior to, and wholly independent of government recognition.
What basis is there, then, for SSM advocates to claim they have a right to civil marriage? While those with homosexual orientations have a right to form same-sex relationships[1], they have no corresponding right to have their relationships recognized and regulated by the government.
Of course, homosexuals could argue that since the government has chosen to recognize and regulate marital relationships, however, that equality and fairness requires that they regulate both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Unfortunately, the equality argument works against them. The principle of equality is that equally positioned parties should be treated equally, but same-sex relationships are not equally positioned to opposite-sex relationships.
Each kind of relationship functions very differently in society. As a rule, opposite-sex couples produce and prepare the next generation of society: children. The very survival of society depends on opposite-sex relationships. That is why society has deemed such relationships worthy of social approval and support. The same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. As a rule, they neither create nor rear children. The future of society does not hang on their relationships. Same-sex relationships only benefit those who participate in them, whereas opposite-sex relationships benefit society as a whole.
If the two relationships do not function the same way in society, then there is no reason for society to recognize them as equal. Indeed, to legally declare two unequal things to be equal, proving them both with the same benefits and name, is unjust. Put another way, not only is there no compelling social interest in regulating same-sex relationships, but to treat same-sex relationships as if they were equal to marital relationships would be unfair. Since marriage is a social declaration, society has both the right and responsibility to limit the institution of marriage to those who, in principle, are capable of forming families, which is what the institution of marriage has always been about.
See also Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage, and Fundamental Rights
[1] Although, unlike opposite-sex marriages, these unions are unnatural, and thus there is no natural right to engage in same-sex relationships. As such, governments can either prohibit or permit such relationships at their own discretion.
Thinking to Believe 
January 15, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Jason, never a dulle topic heh heh. But lolable.
Better put on your buffer pads so you don’t get too rocked by this reply.
“The State regulates marriage because it is in their best interest to manage the procreative potential of opposite sex couples….” Like how does government manage such thing, what do they do, is there an example of managing procreative potential?
What a piece of nonsense that statement is and lo and behold as if that was not nonsense enough, the commentator adds to the nonsensical premise of the first statement, in the next statement by contradicting the first nonsense statement:
” The institution of marriage is a natural union that exists prior to, and wholly independent of government recognition.” There seems to be a contrary clash here: the government regulating a marriage that is wholly independent of government recognition. I don’t know how a government regulates something it does not recognize. Sounds a little absurd methinks.
Before the government became involved in marriage licensing to regulate “vital statistics”, for a number of reasons, none of which was to manage the procreative potential of opposite sex couples, that is so laughable; religion kept a record of marriage statistics but I accept that it is true that in the beginning the natural union of couples was wholly independent of both government and religion and the next door neighbor but the recognition and management of marriage became a religiously controlled institution, not for the procreative potential but because religion wanted to control society by controlling the greatest force in the human experience, sexuality itself. And not so much for the man because frankly a man doesn’t give a hoot about the government or the church when it comes to expressing his sexuality with his love. Marriage is more for the woman so that she can consensually practice her sexuality without being called a slut or a harlot or an easy lay; without marriage a woman is labeled with all the degradation of a piece of swamp refuse. A man’s capitulation to the institution of marriage is for the protection of the woman he loves not the society that is ready to condemn her for not being “married”.
Marriage regulations in government has nothing to do with procreative potential of opposite sex couples, that’s just a rambling statement for argumentative purposes without any substance of fact whatsoever; government regulations of marriages is for legal, financial, next of kin purposes, inheritance, visitation rights, custody of children; and by the way, there are no such thing as same sex couples, the same-sex label is a myopic way of looking at couples based solely on their physical anatomy but sexual orientation is not in the anatomy of a person, sexual orientation is in their brain, their mental makeup.
There are no homosexual couples; all soul mate couples are heterosexual; put a tuxedo on one person and a wedding dress on the other person and presto you have the appearance of a heterosexual couple. If you put tuxedos on both people or wedding dresses on both people you would still have heterosexual couples…. until….. what the fork!; well, until society undresses them and gets to see the anatomy, and then they think they have the answer. Well, in stone age religious insanity one need not look any further but even if you did, you still have not arrived at the sexual orientation because sexual orientation is in the brain, the grey matter between your ears not the fuzzy matter between your legs.
As far as “similar looking” couples being unproductive in society, that is another typical piece of caca del toro religious insanity; similar looking couples have proven every bit as responsible for rearing their own children or adopted children and even more so: responsible, compassionate, understanding, tolerant and reasonable children who grow up without the stigma of cultural and religious intolerance of someone who appears different. Nor do the reared children develop in any unusual way or grotesquely deficient way, physically or mentally.
What have we learned here:
1.) There are no same sex couples, homosexual couples or lesbian couples; all couples are heterosexual and all couples relate to each other in a heterosexual way; In other words in every couple there is a male/female identity interaction.
2.) Marriage was religion’s way of controlling human sexuality not by the man directly but by treating the women men loved like cattle if they did not marry.
3.) The children of women out of wedlock were as degraded as the woman out of wedlock and were called, bastards, another typical religious term to degrade the woman further referring to her child as illegitimate, irregular, inferior, spurious, unusual, vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person; in a word, bastard!
LikeLike
January 15, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Excellent article and great points! I think also anyone who believes in a designer/creator deity could agree to a natural argument. Men and women were designed to come together as evidenced by reproductive function.
As Christian theists, I believe we need to continue to promote godly values letting our voices be heard in the voting booths and media outlets.
Great post!
LikeLike
January 15, 2013 at 8:56 pm
JAYSEN:
UNFORTUNATELY for your point of view there is no such thing as “godly values” anymore than there is a “godly sabbath” or a “godly seventh day for rest”. All values, all virtues, all morals, all religion, all god myths, angels and demons; indeed, all things human derive from a person(and evil unfortunately) all come from man. All caricature concepts are from the mind and imagination of yours truly, man and the sons of man.
Religion has always use the Credit/Debit analogy; AKA, God/ Satan to give praise or heap disdain upon depending if the event is good or bad for your particular experience.
Humans need to take responsibility for their own actions and behavior instead of inventing a god to credit or a satan to debit, the good and evil, resp., that we witness.
May God Be Less Everyone. (MGBLE)
LikeLike
January 15, 2013 at 9:08 pm
AND Everyone WAS ON THE EDGE OF HIS SEAT WONDERING WHAT AMAZING THING HE WOULD SAY NEXT.
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 9:01 am
Leonardo,
Apart from your long-winded comment at the beginning (which I will comment on in a second), you’re quick dismissal of God on a blog where believers congregate (and have a few good philosophical reasons to believe in God) is insulting and unedifying.
1.) There are no same sex couples, homosexual couples or lesbian couples; all couples are heterosexual and all couples relate to each other in a heterosexual way; In other words in every couple there is a male/female identity interaction.
While the latter may be true (I have not seen any scientific documentation to back this up), it is deceitful to use standard words without using the standard definitions. Clearly, if the anatomy is identical, then they are “same-sex” marriage (being of same gender).
2.) Marriage was religion’s way of controlling human sexuality not by the man directly but by treating the women men loved like cattle if they did not marry.
Not true – In fact it is Secular society that glorifies the men for being promiscuous and denigrates the woman. Religion (specifically Christian) condemns all sexual behaviour outside of wedlock as sinful. Whether man or woman.
3.) The children of women out of wedlock were as degraded as the woman out of wedlock and were called, bastards, another typical religious term to degrade the woman further referring to her child as illegitimate, irregular, inferior, spurious, unusual, vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person; in a word, bastard!
The assertion that the word “bastard” is a religious term is a new one to me, and not something I would take at face value.
Family has been known as a bedrock for a stable society. This consists of a Father, Mother, and child(ren). There have been scientific studies (Jason has linked to them in the past) that show that it is far better to be raised by a mother and father combination over any other type. Therefore the government should prefer this set-up over all others.
Personally, they should have just recognised marriage as a civil partnership and left it at that.
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 9:53 am
Scott:
Thank you for your reply: I really enjoy and invite responses such as yours.
Personally I think marriage should be abolished and let it happen naturally as it was in the beginning, when a man left his family to cling to his wife; and vice versa, and the two became one(through sexual union is the implication). Marriage if anything should be a civil partnership, I agree with you on that but a civil partnership for all marriages.
But it was religion that controlled human sexuality and that has always been the way. It is so clearly evident still in stoneage Islam that wants to cover up the woman in a burlap sack burka so that men cannot see the woman. Why? to control sexuality.
In Psychology 101 you would learn that mere VISION of the opposite sex causes a chemical reaction through the eyes that trigger brain responses causing arousal, so the burka interferes with the natural design of the human anatomy by covering everything except the eyes through a slit and is still a symbol of the myopic stoneagism of religion.
As I have said before I will say it again since you ares till under the impression that sexual orientation is between your legs and not between your ears and if you want a scientific explanation of that here is one illustration that you cannot help but understand what I am talking about when I say that sexual orientation is in the brain and the very reason why mere vision as noted above arouses sexuality. The eyes are a conduit to the the brain, you don’t see with your eyes where you see is in your brain like hearing, you know that, what more scientific literature do you need to understand the simplicity that it IS NOT ANATOMY that is dominant:
The simplicity of anatomy:
Hearing like seeing is a purely mechanical process.
I use my thoracic and abdominal muscles so that I can use my thoracic cavity as a bellows to produce a draft of air that will pass across my larynx and by tautening or slackening the vocal chords, I’ll produce vibrations that are projected into the atmosphere and caught by two cup shaped appendages which you have on the side of your head and they’re focused on the outer membrane called the eardrum that begins to vibrate in harmony with the vibrations that I’m producing in my throat and you see, attached to that outer membrane, the eardrum, there’s a little bone called the hammer that’s in contact with another little bone called the anvil and it begins to strike it, motivated by the eardrum in harmony with the vibrations that I’m producing in my throat and that little bone, the anvil, is in touch with another little bone called the stirrup, so called, because it’s like what you might use if you were riding a horse and that, in its turn, is in contact with an inner membrane that contains fluid and the vibrations are communicated through the fluid to the nerve end that then convey an impulse to a certain area of your brain; and then, you know exactly what I’m talking about. You see, it’s purely a mechanical process. You don’t hear anything with your ear, you know that, vibrations are simply communicated, where you hear is in the brain.
And please don’t give me the Pharisaical/Scribe induced lamentation that I am insulting and unedifying those who congregate here; that is exactly what they said about Jesus when he interpreted scripture perfectly debunking the supernatural and sure it was insulting and unedifying but Jesus did not want to the blind and downtrodden to remain blind and downtrodden because of lack of knowledge and understanding, not belief, they had plenty of belief, they just didn’t have knowledge and understanding because only knowledge can set you free, belief never can!, because of the nonsense the clergy deceived them by.
I too am here to open eyes as Jesus himself said before me when he picked up the Old Testament(the only bible Jesus ever had by the way, was the Old Testament not because he didn’t like the New Testament, he just never had it) Jesus picked up the Bible and read, as was the custom of the people to be able to communicate to the congregation the scripture and to comment on what they read. Do you recall what he read and what his comment was and what the reaction of the people was? similar to your reaction to my long winded commentary:
Read it for yourself and try to understand what Jesus meant; what I mean:
LK 4:16-30:
Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,[j]
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”[k]
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”
23 He said to them, “You will surely say this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum,[l] do also here in Your country.’” 24 Then He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; 26 but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath,[m] in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”
28 So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way.
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 10:34 am
For your edification(improvement, instruction, or enlightenment):
The word “bastard” appears three times in the King James Version of the Bible.
In Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Zechariah 9:6 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.and
Hebrews 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Leonardo,
Prayed for you yesterday morning and today. * I know, I’m wasting my time..right?*
On your comments though, I don’t hold to YOUR values of atheism so naturally I would disagree with your conclusions about life and the origin of values . What I value goes against what you value, but your dismisal of my values does nothing to change them…neither do the videos.
I
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Jaysen:
Thanks for the prayers, damn it, never felt a thing. My values are Jesus values and he is a hero, the real Jesus that is, not the supernaturalsupercalifragilisticexpialidocious guy; Jesus and I are one.
You should get to know him, not the painted, picture perfect Jesus on DaVinci’s ceiling; not the Jesus the clergy would have you think was a miraculous wonder of deity, but Jesus the real man, the common sense man, the one who fixed your window when it jammed, the down to earth guy who held you in his arms when you were hurting real bad, the man who comforted you with human dignity and shared your grief, your tears and your hopes for a better life. The real man you ought to get to know. Not the clerical ghostly guy that inhabits some misty place in the world of superstition behind that sanctuary of white cloths and dead mens bones.
Jesus the real man, the real person, the son of man as we all are capable of being, if we only realized it instead of waiting for the second Coming.: Be the Coming you are waiting for, be the wish you hope for, bring heaven out into the open from the mind within, where the Kingdom resides, so it can be seen and enjoyed and benefited by others. It’s easy if you try; it’s the only one that makes sense in a religious world of nonsense.
LikeLike
February 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm
There is a civil right to marriage, so your whole argument fails.
LikeLike
February 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Jason, are you familiar with the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia?
LikeLike
February 2, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Jerry:
I am not familiar with the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia and instead of looking it up, may I suggest that you briefly explain the case and the relevancy in light of this posting.
Part of this symposium I believe is to share knowledge and enlightenment to those of us who do not have the knowledge yet; and more importantly, to share knowledge with those who still operate on a belief system, which of course is a conundrum in their lives because belief can never set you free, only knowledge can do that!
So I would welcome your summary of that Supreme Court case. Thanks.
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 10:13 am
Jerry,
Yes, legally speaking, but no, logically speaking. The government could stop regulating marriage tomorrow and marriage itself would not change because marriage is a natural institution.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm
[…] Civil Marriage is Not a Right, so Same-Sex Marriage Cannot be a Right […]
LikeLike