The Natural Basis of Marriage

The next question people ask is: "OK, so why is your definition the correct one? Can you give me a basis for it that doesn't rely on what your magical sky-god wrote in the holy book?"

To which every supporter of the natural-conjugal view should be able to say: “OK.”

What's the Harm?

Regarding the consequences of redefining marriage toward gender-neutrality, the most common question is:

“How will this affect you getting married?”  Or “How will this affect a single straight-marriage?”

News anchors seem to take particular delight in asking this question to those who believe in the natural-conjugal definition of marriage.    The answer to those questions are, admittedly, very little. 

“Aha!” the asker says, “How could you oppose it when it doesn’t affect you!  Your only reason is your religiously motivated hatred!”

Well, imagine the same thing being said about no-fault divorce.  True, liberalizing divorce would not have much effect on happy couples.  But is that really the only way to measure its impact?  Are there no other societal side-effects?  No other interested parties to think about?

Same goes for redefining marriage toward gender neutrality.  So I would classify the various negative side-effects into three categories…

How We Got Here

I’ve heard it said that society’s understanding of marriage has changed over time.  Perhaps that is true … but does that mean it has gotten better?  Is it possible that our understanding of marriage has moved away from the one which best serves the common good?
  

I’m not a sociologist, but here are the factors which I believe have driven the change in our understanding of marriage.

The Real Legal Picture

People who support the natural-conjugal understanding of marriage get used to being asked: 

Why do you oppose the rights of gay people to get married?

There are assumptions in this question which need to be addressed.

What Now?

With all of that background behind us, let’s look to the big question:  What now?

That was the most troubling question I had after the Supreme Court ruling. The people can still have a voice when  things are being handled by legislatures.  But now that the court has issued its dictat on this cultural question, there really can be no political activism applied directly to the issue anymore. 

The situation closely resembles the state of affairs after Roe vs Wade.  Creative alternatives had to be found to protect the rights of children which could survive the scrutiny imposed by the Supreme Court. 

The are the ideas I had.