A recent ABC television Q&A program was on the subject of same-sex marriage. Those on the panel in favour spoke largely of equal rights, and those against, of society not being ready for it. This prompted a young woman in the audience to ask if there is any material reason for rejecting same-sex marriage.
Well, yes, although none of the panel responded to her question. Marriage is an institution whose raison d’etre is the protection of the procreation of children and all that flows therefrom, including identifying their parents in advance. In the absence of the biological necessity for one male and one female in the making of every child, there would be no such institution.
By biological definition, same-sex partners cannot be candidates for marriage. If procreation is omitted from the definition of marriage, then there is no logic in confining its extension to same-sex couples.
Marriage does not exist to support sexual activity in isolation from procreation. As we are well aware in our promiscuous society, its practice needs no institutional prompting.
If love and commitment are the criteria, then in the name of equality it should be made available to any committed friends who hope for a long-standing and mutually supportive relationship; or why not to any two people at all, or three, or four, for the asking.
The whole proposition is absurd and, if effected, would only serve to confuse us further as regards the essential function of marriage.
As institutional support for marriage in its fundamental role has been eroded over the last several decades, so has the proper care of children deteriorated.