I don’t even yet know the structure of the argument I’m going to end up making ultimately, though I am certain this is a topic I will not finish for at least many parts, if at all. However, I do at least know how I would like to begin. As I mentioned in my post What’s the Point of Equality? the notion of “marriage equality” forwarded by progressivists assumes a relevant likeness shared by homosexual and heterosexual couples. I would like to answer that in the negative, showing that the properties relevant to the institution of marriage are specifically not possessed by homosexual couples, of which it would follow that homosexual couples cannot be married as a matter of social-metaphysical necessity.

To begin, I would like to engage with the notion of social-metaphysical necessity that I’ve just invoked. Marriage is not, in the proper sense, a mere metaphysical fact for, while the necessity is grounded in the essential metaphysical nature of man and woman, marriage is also essentially, in the metaphysical sense, a social institution. Ergo, social-metaphysical necessity. The structure of society as conditioned by the metaphysical properties of the two sexual groups makes it impossible for marriage, insofar as it is that institution picked out historically to designate a kind of explicit communal oath, rather than some other social construct, to be a construct that involves sexually opposite pairs in a relationship grounded by some specific premises.

What I mean by this is that, however one may want to use the word ‘marriage,’ it will always be necessary for the good of society to pick out that particular relationship which has historically gone by the name of ‘marriage.’ Whatever happens politically, however language is changed, it will always be an essential good for society to save a particular veneration for the good of marriage. A society which foregoes the essential metaphysics of marriage, whatever else it may call ‘marriage,’ is a society which has lost an essential foundation, and it can only wither until it collapses. The argument which establishes this is partly historical, partly social theory. There is, comparing between the metaphysical potential a heterosexual union possesses and that of a homosexual union, a specific and important potential that heterosexual union possesses which society is built on that homosexual union does not possess.

Before proceeding any further, let’s throw out all presuppositions about marriage and sexuality. My argument does not depend whatsoever on the ethics of homosexuality, but is based only on what is materially the case, i.e. that which things are. Insofar as ethics is concerned, it is that concerned with the existence of society at all, for by assuming the good of society, whatever is necessary for society to thrive and flourish becomes itself an essential kind of good. Aside from that, this is an analysis concerned merely with what is required for society to thrive and flourish.

Society engenders social constructs. Social constructs are good when they lead to the flourishing of society. So you would want, for instance, those social constructs and institutions that help people to get what they want, such as markets. Markets are good because they coordinate economic activity, which is necessary for society to exist. Without a mechanism for distributing goods to individuals, there is no way for people to come together. The market as a social institution can be gauged as good insofar as it achieves the end of distributing goods. Likewise, one can look at the issue of securing justice, so you want the construct of a body of law and the institutions that uphold and administer the law.

In other words, if you believe in the good of society, then you must believe in the good of at least some social constructs. We cannot be normatively nihilistic about social constructs and the social roles they imply.

In order for the essential goods of society to be actualized, there must be social institutions concerned with actualizing those essential goods. Hence markets, law, courts, and so on.

Now consider the good of raising and educating children so that they may take their place in society. In order for this to take place, there must be some institution in society which is specifically concerned with that good. Regarding children, the social roles fulfilled in that institution should be preferable to the parties involved, i.e. such that it is preferable to the children and those to whom care is delegated. An institution that is set up to work against the fixed variables of economic laws, human nature, and innate preferences will be harmful to the individuals involved and bad for society, as harm is contrary to the thriving of society.

There are a variety of institutions which might be established for the care of children, and I will distinguish two poles on a continuum that the institutions must fall on. The first pole is individualistic, where care is undertaken by the two biological parents. The opposite pole is communistic, where care is undertaken by a state organization and children are completely removed from their parents.

I will note right away that, in pointing to this continuum, that the way children will actually be raised is plural. Even supposing that the most common social institution concerned with raising children is a model that requires the involvement of both biological parents, clearly there will always be instances where one or both parents are unable to be involved, at which point an alternative model must be utilized, e.g. single motherhood, foster homes, orphanages, etc. However, the point is that we are concerned with answering what the preferable model is, for which alternate models are utilized in the case that the preferable model isn’t able to be fulfilled. So, for instance, someone who might hold to a communist perspective may argue for children to be raised by the state, completely removing the parents, but they may hold that, in the case the state will not do this, whatever is nearer that model is preferable, e.g. state-sponsored education, subsidies for daycare, etc. This is how someone who prefers children to be raised by their biological parents would answer for those cases in which that is impossible.

This approach will help to answer not only what marriage essentially is, which is tied to history, but also of its good and why it arises at all. In the next part, I will get around to the initial historical question, which is why there was ever the institution recognized as marriage and why it was understood to be a specific form of heterosexual union.