Many are arguing that if hetero marriages are natural as it can lead to procreation, but old couples or those whom are ‘barren’ can still get married even though they can’t procreate, then homo marriages should also be allowed since they too can’t procreate like the aforementioned.
The point which they miss, but which is obvious to myself, is that the fact that hetero marriages can lead to procreation in itself, makes it a natural union in itself. It doesn’t matter if the couple desire to procreate or not, or if they are able to or not. What matters is that the union of woman and man in general can lead to procreation. That is in itself enough to render the union natural.
Love in itself is no justification for a union without the naturalness factor. Given the work of animal rights activists, and their stating that animals are equal to human beings, if we allow gay marriages on the basis of love itself, and not its potential for procreation, than are we going to see a time when people might want to marry their dogs as well? After all, there are people out there who leave all their fortunes to animals instead of the starving bloke sleeping in doorways in the midst of winter. I can see some people arguing, “well, we need consent from the dog, and the dog can’t consent because it can’t speak, so that kind of union isn’t right.” But isn’t the wagging tail enough?
Being able to make a choice doesn’t make the choice right or natural. One ought to be wary of fetishising choice to the point that all morals are subject to the fancies of any fetish. That said, I don't see why the Church of England should have a problem with homosexual marriages. They are after all a Church of ‘England’, not a Church of ‘God’. They have a filthy rich exploitative 'queen' as its head who’d rather be the riches women in the UK than put a stop to numerous children dying of starvation and illness in Africa. Hence, this so-called ‘church’ of England is a church that is supposed to be representative of the appetites and stupidity of the people right? So why the opposition, pray tell?
Well, thank the Gods that there is a sizeable Muslim population in the UK. If not, it wouldn’t be long, or it might already be the case, that the Church of England would be expected to conduct homosexual marriages. In their efforts to be sensitive to the Muslim, amongst other, populations, the Church remains exempt from doing so.
As for civil marriages for homosexuals, i’m a bit conflicted about that. Previously, i had stated that homosexuals should be allowed access to civil marriages. However, i cannot deny that it would dilute the idea of marriage or let anyone attach any meaning to it other than the traditional one. However, again, to expect the civil side to comply with the religious definition of marriage is like expecting one religion to comply with another religion’s definition of it. I don’t think we can expect civil conformity to religious idea of marriage when we can’t expect one religion to conform to another religion’s idea of marriage.
Being able to make a choice doesn’t make the choice right or natural. One ought to be wary of fetishising choice to the point that all morals are subject to the fancies of any fetish.
related: No! to Catholic Homosexual Marriages, says ed