Marriage relates courtship and spousal selection to reproduction precisely because the FACT of human reproduction implicates the political necessity that is the ORDERLY perpetuation of the nation and society.

Because reproduction is a FACT and will have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad, the mechanisms of marriage and family law seek to regulate the selection of spouses and stabilize the relationship once the selection is made because of the POTENTIAL OF MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER TO CREATE SOCIAL DISORDER when they do reproduce.

From experience, it is taken as given that stable mother/father relationships are the most beneficial arrangement for raising children, and marriage seeks in an important way to assure children the support from the father responsible for their existence, which rationalizes the conferring of rights and benefits as an inducement for heterosexual couples to achieve this objective.

Same-sex relationships have NOTHING AT ALL to do with either the natural, biological purpose of selecting a spouse or the political purpose of it as well. Sexual relations between members of the same sex and the relationships that might derive from these have at best a NEUTRAL EFFECT on society in the best of times, and a negative effect when population declines menace a nation. Therefore, it would be IRRATIONAL to confer the status of marriage upon a relationship that is forever separated from the purpose for which it is intended.

The state purpose of marriage is to bring ORDER to the particular human activity that is procreation. It is not an obligation to reproduce.

Of course it’s an “absurd idea,” but it’s merely the logical application of the idea that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation, or that the ability of both partners to reproduce with one another is one of the defining characteristics of marriage. It’s taking the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling (PDF) at face value.

In other words, it’s taking a flawed argument to its logical extreme.

The only people making this absurd and flawed argument are the SUPPORTERS of same-sex marriage. I’ve never seen those who oppose same-sex marriage make this argument.

It’s a classic straw-man argument.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual cou…