Marriage as a FUNCTION

I was thinking about this over the weekend, mostly, I suppose because of the Saint Caitlyn Jenner worship fest.

Marriage is not a "right". It is not a "state of being". It is a FUNCTION.

And the function is the birth of the next generation.

Society needed an institution that performed this function: the bringing into existence, and the socializing of the next generation.

That's what marriage is. Nothing more.

It is not the joining of two people who love each other or the happy uniting of companions for life. It is not a statement of undying love between lovers.

Those are the "perks" of marriage, not the reason or definition of marriage itself.

And that is why "gay marriage" is absurd. It is an oxymoron. An impossibility.

If the creation of new life is physically impossible, MARRIAGE can't, by definition, exist.

Now there are those who ask, then, that if a man and woman,  will not or cannot have children, why should they be able to get married. I, actually, would agree that it doesn't make any sense for them to do so. Why would they need to, or want to?*

Yes, there are certain financial advantages to marriage. But they are only offered in order to encourage couples to get married and have children. They were never meant to be advantages to "couples", but to "families". That's the difference. And that used to be understood. 

Only because we have allowed the social definition of marriage to be so distorted do we even have this conversation.

Marriage is the production, promotion and protection of FAMILIES.

There is, in fact, no reason for confirmed childless or older couples to get married. There is, literally, no point. They won't/can't participate in the FUNCTION that is marriage, therefore it is nothing but a charade  (much like a man pretending a eunuch is a woman.)

/gun

*I would, however, make this vital distinction:  Heterosexual couples unable to have babies, who marry with the intention of adopting and raising children make a valid marriage. I especially and expressed note, however, that homosexuals who do so do NOT make a valid marriage, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that children do not do well raised by same sex couples or in broken homes of just one parent.

IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE POLITICALLY CORRECT LIE THAT THEY ARE EQUALLY SUCCESSFUL, EMOTIONALLY HEALTHY AND WELL ADJUSTED.

Sacrificing the mental, physical and psychological health of innocent children to satisfy one's deviant preferences is unacceptable in any decent, child loving and protecting society.

And that is my last word on the subject (for today, anyway).

__________________

Addendum:  I understand that examples of children who have done perfectly well with parents of the same sex do, in fact, exist. No doubt there are wonderful, brilliant exceptions. But they are just that, exceptions.  They are NOT the rule. And it is the RULE that we must take into consideration when determining policy and best practices.