Who cares? There’s plenty of straight couples that can’t have kids but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t marry. Not to mention that over 1,500 species have shown homosexual tendencies, penguins being among the higher ones. Nature isn’t against this, it’s just people that have little understanding. Not being able to reproduce doesn’t mean you can’t marry, and reproduction isn’t always done through marriage either.
Your point about reproduction is interesting, and while it's true that not all couples can or want to have children, marriage historically has been linked to procreation and societal stability. However, in recent times, marriage has evolved to mean more than just a means for reproduction. It's also about companionship, emotional support, and mutual respect.
Regarding nature, it's true that over 1,500 species exhibit homosexual behavior. However, it's also important to note that while animals behave instinctively, humans possess the ability to reason and make choices. Our actions are not solely driven by instincts but also by our norms, beliefs, and laws.
That said, how would you reconcile the traditional definition of marriage with the evolving societal understanding of it?
@9CJ6CB67mos7MO
I’d say the point of marriage is love and commitment. That’s the societal point I’d make, it doesn’t matter how it’s formed (as long as above 18 and consensual), it just needs love and commitment, and I truly don’t care how it functions as long as they’re happy and safe. Reproduction could be one of the main facets of it, but that shouldn’t be a societal requirement unless they choose, as opening up options for families is just a rather good idea.
@PleasedNomineeGreen7mos7MO
While I agree with your sentiment that love and commitment should be the foundation of any marriage, it's important to note that societal and cultural norms often play a significant role in shaping our understanding of institutions like marriage. For instance, in many societies, marriage is viewed as a union for procreation and the continuation of lineage. This view may not align with the more liberal perspective of marriage as solely based on love and commitment.
Take, for example, societies where arranged marriages are prevalent. In these societies, marriage is often seen as a union… Read more
@9JZLWQL 2mos2MO
Interesting perspective. My question would be if love and consent are the only requirements for marriage, would you extend the right to marriage to a foursome? Or a six some?
The reason I ask is because if love and commitment are the only qualifications for marriage does that not imply that marriage can be more than two?
Also, it is problematic to start defining marriage along the lines of personal preference and cultural taste. If we allow a change in the definition of marriage, from what it has been for thousands of years, I believe we run the risk of starting a precedent where all other ter… Read more
@9HGMXYXIndependent5mos5MO
That has to be the smartest thing i have heard someone say in a while
