You did not adduce the purpose of marriage as an issue, you referred to sham marriages. Now, you are putting it on a different level. Even the church does not say that procreation must be in play for a valid union, though, it says one should not intentionally subvert the procreative purposes. Another reason for marriage is to fullfill the desire of intimacy, and increase natural affection. By itself, that would not preclude homosexual unions, if it were not the view of the church that homosexual acts are themselves wrong, and therefore could not form a basis for a legitimate union.
But lay the church aside. The problem with homosexual marriage is that, by putting homosexual unions on the same footing as traditional marriage, it goes too far in normalizing homosexuality, further eroding our ability to make moral judgments about sexual behavior. Things are hanging by a thread as it is, do we really want people legitimizing their promiscuity or pedophilia by referring to the innateness of their desire, on the analogy of homosexuals pleading that they cannot help themselves? Civil union is reasonable, and it preserves the distinction. If the parties want to, and can find a sympathetic minister, they can even have a wedding. But forcing society to recognize the marriage is an assault upon both normality and any kind of standards....... |
