What is Marriage? The old definition is a union of a man and a woman. The idea of a nation of laws as well as the emergence of the welfare state and the LGBT movement were instrumental in changing the old definition to a new definition that combines different sex marriages and same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages are not allowed by certain religious laws like for example, Canon Laws. Canon Laws are based on the two book bible. There are also one and three book bible laws, all of which apparently also forbid same-sex marriages but none of the monotheistic, messianic religions use the idea of same sex marriages. That of course cast’s doubt on the validity of the authors of those books who are supposed to carry certain bullet-proof bone fides which in turn casts doubt on their usefulness in solving worldly problems. That’s not too surprising. None of the 1,2 or 3 book bibles are new and same sex marriages are recent phenomena so it’s no surprise they were not in the old books. That makes marriage a secular, not a religious issue. If that logic escapes you, the rest is not for you.
Secular law is best used separately from religious law. When combined it is biased and neither objective nor logical. Laws which seek to combine religious and secular laws are best judged as non-human, therefore anti-human. They work against life meaning,… space is limited here so do you need that explained in more detail? You’ll have to go elsewhere for that.
Anti-human laws are not much use to humans, are they? That leaves secular law to be used to solve the different sex and same sex marriage issue.
Biology is not thought of as part of the law. Biology is extremely useful. There is certainty in biology, as in other sciences. The law cannot guarantee certainty. It cannot even guarantee justice which of course it recognizes and doesn’t although if masks that conclusion pretty well. What will not change is the DNA sequence of the children. Certainly LGBT’s can raise children but the DNA of the children will not sequence the way it does from a different sex marriage. In the case of gay men there is no DNA sequence like there is when a straight man and a straight woman are married. Neither can LGTB’s sequence from each other. Nature doesn’t work that way. Nature cannot combine two eggs. If two sperm fertilize one egg the egg divides but neither division can include a LGBT combination. A child of a LGBT marriage must be either from neither partner or from only one, not from two. That appears to create the issue of three sex pregnancies. Again, space is limited so that issue will not be solved here.
Nothing can stop determined people from a relationship. Civil marriage on the other hand can be stopped. Same-sex marriage is different than marriage. Perhaps the old idea of marriage should have been called Natural Marriage. That won’t solve the marriage debate. LGBT individuals consider their state natural and of course it is for them. Different sex marriages require a man and a woman although the LGBT issue has expanded the idea of two different sexes to more than nine. Different sex marriages between two different straight sexes are only one of the possible combinations of straight and non-straight unions. Three sex marriages are included in the new definitions of marriage. A gay straight lesbian marriage? What stops it? Polygamy laws? They prohibit Male, female, female marriage or female, male, male marriage but polygamy laws are silent on a marriage of three different sexes, such as a gay straight transvestite marriage, right?
The children of straight different sex marriages share a DNA sequence. That sequence includes the combination of both straight different sex parents.
There is no way to stop the re-definition of a word. It’s change is reversible but the redefined concept of marriage probably won’t be reversed.
The word marriage has been stolen. Marriage was a concept represented by a word. All words except proper nouns are names for concepts. Ayn Rand’s ideas regarding concepts are in “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”. Her idea about stealing concepts is in turn the concept called the fallacy of the stolen concept. It’s the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
Same-sex marriage denies the validity of the genetic roots of the concept of marriage. The genetic root of the concept “same-sex marriage” on which the new definition of marriage will depend is: marriage. The LGBT movement has stolen the definition of the word marriage and changed it to include same-sex marriage. What they cannot steal is the DNA combination. Should the concept of marriage be broadened to include same-sex marriages? Look around.