That's biology, not law. This was brought up in court. (sortof) If marriage exists to promote procreation, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? What about couples who are fertile but just refuse to have children?Yes there is natural law. Gays cannot procreate through gay sex.
Marriage isn't just about children.
You missed the point. The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly. One man and one woman of the same race, remember? One man and his property. Marriage didn't start as a holy covenant, it started as a contract for the transfer of property. Why is it ok to change that definition and now it isn't?This isn't about ownership. This is about what the definition of the word is and has always been, and what one sexual interest group that makes up about 2% of the population wants to change it to.
So why are you not arguing for dissolution of elderly couples' marriages?Marriage is an institution that is in harmony with natural law. It's purpose it to bring the sexes together for procreation, where children are raised in an optimal environment. Biological parents have a specific purpose in regards to the emotional and psychological well being of a child. Marriage is about children.
It has changed before. If you can't see that, there's no reason to discuss this with you further.Gays do not have the right to change the definition of what marriage is and always has been.