The question I want to examine is whether this is a sound argument. It is not then the same human right. In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right. Discover More About Public Justice: The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The UN charter, however, is couched in terms of marriage being a right for men and women to form families.
Let's say you contract with me to paint your house.
Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right
Heterosexual marriage partners will still be able to engage in sexual intercourse and potentially procreate children; homosexual partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse. The main argument put forward in favour of altering the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman is that this discriminates against relationships between individuals of the same sex and hence constitutes a violation of their right to have their relationship recognised as having equal value. One reason for proposing that love which has the natural possibility of bearing fruit is to be valued very highly is that it enables the renewal of the state. Premise 1' does not save the argument. The institution of marriage is established to support the family in its raising of children, who are the future of the community. Does not this mean it is as intrinsically barren as a relationship between a gay couple and hence there is no difference between an infertile heterosexual couple and gay couple?
In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past legal judgments. Does not this mean it is as intrinsically barren as a relationship between a gay couple and hence there is no difference between an infertile heterosexual couple and gay couple? On the other hand, if any of the premises are false, then the conclusion is false, though the argument is still valid since the form of the argument is valid. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.