A Social-Metaphysical Theory of Marriage

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 thatinstitution 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.

Read more at Anarcho-Papist.