From this perspective, the devaluation of same-sex intimacy is immoral because it constitutes arbitrary and irrational discriminationthereby damaging the community. Thus, prohibiting a specific group from the full rights of marriage was illegally discriminatory.
In their view, because male and female are both necessary for procreation, the privileges of marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. This symbolic value is tremendous to a great number people, and it is a symbolic value that is attached to the entire institution of marriage, not just to specific cases of marriage.
Have you ever thought about what other people believe in? It would follow with moral ease that legal systems should, and would, reflect such moral consensus. We concede that observation. A good case study is, in fact, South Africa.
This is evidenced by the fact that in most countries there is a strong majority that rejects the very notion of same-sex marriage. In this view, such relationships are intrinsically worthy while also quite distinct from though not incompatible with activities associated with the bearing or raising of children.
Marriage is a legal act. On team opposition we decided to focus the debate on the two central questions at stake: Why is marriage important, and what will the consequences be if we legalize same-sex marriages? When you hear two people are married, there is certain socially conditioned imagery which comes to mind.
See Article History. This was the case in both Iran, where a strong Muslim theocracy had criminalized same-sex intimacy, and Denmark , where the findings of a conference of Evangelical Lutheran bishops representing the state religion had helped smooth the way for the first national recognition of same-sex relationships through registered partnerships.
While the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the former does not necessarily bring about the latter, nor is the latter predicated on the former. We never claimed that to be the case, nor would we do so.