'Vive la Difference!' Don’t use marriage to equalise unequals

Best for society

The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, has unique benefits for society too. Just as it can join many paradoxical opposites and give to children unequalled possibilities of life and love, so too can it give to society as a whole unity, population and security, with unequalled reliability.

Of public interest

The natural service that this relationship gives to society, especially with respect to its role in the service of raising the next generation, means that this relationship is of public interest in the way that no other relationship is. And the public interest begins even before the children come, and applies to every instance of this relationship, not just to those who have children.

Adoption works differently. When one or more people adopt a child, these individual cases of adoption are of public interest, and it is therefore appropriate for society to officially recognise adoption relationships, on a case by case basis. But with every instance of the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, with this class of relationship as a whole, public interest begins before children come, because of the natural ordering of this relationship to the generation of children.

With same-sex unions, adoption or deliberately organising for a child to live without biological mother or father applies only to individual cases, while the absence of an ordering towards production of children does apply to the class as a whole. With heterosexual unions, obstacles to fertility apply to individual cases only while the natural ordering towards production of children applies to the class as a whole. So which relationship class as a whole does public interest properly apply to?

So, we return to our two principles: of logic - 1) something that is unique should have a unique name; and of justice - 2) unique things deserve unique treatment.

The amazingly unique man-woman relationship should not share its own unique name with same-sex unions, as it does not share it with de-facto heterosexual unions, because same-sex and de-facto unions always lack at least one of the three essential properties of man-woman marriage, and therefore they do not have, as classes of relationship, the unique benefits for children and the public interest for society.

Since same-sex unions do not share the unique features and societal benefits of marriage, the only way they could get legal recognition is by an illogical act, an act of injustice, an act of denial about the uniqueness of the man-woman relationship we call marriage.

One act against the unique nature of man-woman marriage leads to others: to a questioning of the reason for permanence and exclusivity and to a rapid vanishing of arguments against polyamory and incest. And because our own human biology keeps witnessing the unique nature of man-woman marriage, the denial of difference and fabrication of equality must be maintained by forcing gender ideology into schools, by allowing boys and men into girls’ change rooms and women’s sports clubs and by prosecuting anyone who dares to say, ‘vive la difference!’