. . . so long as he understands that marriage is between one man and one woman and that to enjoy that right he must submit himself to that traditional understanding of the institution.
Therefore, it’s not even necessarily that a homosexual should have the right to get married as much as it is that a homosexual currently does have the right to get married.
This is because marriage is a term that means something and to participate in it one must follow the inherent principles of the term’s definition. For example, “walking” is defined as “advancing on foot at a moderate pace,” while “running” is defined as “going quickly by moving the legs rapidly.” Walking is not running and running is not walking. Therefore, to participate in the activity of walking is not the same as participating in the activity of running. Moreover, one can easily differentiate between the two activities based on the inherent principles included in the definitions of the terms.
Marriage is defined as a union between a “husband and wife,” which means a “male and a female.” Therefore, a homosexual male can only participate in marriage so long as he marries a woman, and a homosexual woman can only participate in marriage so long as she marries a male, just as I can only perform heart surgery on a patient if I have credibly earned a medical license or cannot perform heart surgery on a patient if I have not credibly earned a medical license.
Actually, I could perform the surgery, but it wouldn’t make me a heart surgeon. Moreover, it would be dangerous and harmful to society.
This is because functionality, or the right to participate or not participate in certain actions, doesn’t mean inequality. It merely means that there are standards applied to certain rights and these standards are applied for good reasons.
One would never argue that people should be able to perform heart surgery on other people without a license, citing that it is a breach of equality to suggest otherwise.
The current debate on “same-sex marriage,” which is the equivalent of saying “the current debate on square circles,” argues on the platform of “equality,” but there has been a serious misunderstanding as to what “equality” is. Equality has nothing to do with the right for every person to participate in every action. It is the balanced and tested result of multiple, defined integers. Therefore, an unlicensed individual plus a scalpel doesn’t “equal” a heart surgeon anymore than a man plus a man “equals” a marriage.
Certain factors need to be present for a certain summation to take place, and in the case of “same-sex marriage” it is the opposite gender.
In order for homosexuals to participate in “same-sex marriage,” the integers of marriage would have to be redefined. And redefining integers always equals a different summation. But this is not what proponents for “same-sex marriage” want to do. They want to redefine the integers but keep the same result. They want to redefine the number two, but still suggest that, “two plus two equals four.” They want redefine the principles of walking, but still call it walking when they might actually be running.
If the Supreme Court of the United States votes in favor of “same-sex marriage,” then they have essentially voted that “two” can mean “three, five, or one-hundred and ten,” but that adding “two and two” still equals “four.”