So-and-so, so-and-so's wife

The difference in heterosexual marriages is that they have the property of heritability, so it ends with an heir and product that is a public good, while homosexual marriages can at most produce a strain of "emotion" which has no heritability value...

One of the cyclical open debates whenever certain symbolic dates approach, which promote same-sex couples, is the debate over what is family and what is the definition of marriage? Such a debate seems strange to a large part of people, but what is not surprising at all is the fact that this erosion is now a stubborn reality throughout the West and consequently also in Albania. But, what constitutes a heavy intellectual tax, is the undertaking to answer absurd questions, which, as a result of the relativizing discourse, insistently require public answers and not only that, but require redefinition and remoralization of the basic concepts and practices of society human. This, in the name of a new social order drawn on particularly problematic psychological grounds.

Defenders of the view that traditional marriage should be reviewed and its concepts should be reshaped, are also supporters of same-sex marriages. Their definition of marriage is typically simple and their argumentative rhetoric is based on the fact that the basis of marriage should be love and sexual emotion. The beauty of this claim is that they do not agree to create another "competing" social entity outside of traditional marriage, but seek to attach themselves to the latter, changing it entirely.

So, a relationship of necessity, a little absurd. However, the concept of heterosexual marriage, which is both traditional and massive, is a social practice based first on transcendence, that is, in the perspective of creation, marriage descended as an institution simultaneously with the first two people (Adam and Eve), the first based on common human reason, which has as its final result the common social good. So, marriage in the religious worldview is not a structure created by the creatures themselves, but an institution sent down by the Creator as a ready model of social functioning, which implies the authenticity and immutability of this model, because the only authority that can change this concept , is only its author.

While the second concept of marriage is based on human reason which says that the three pillars of civilization are the objects of worship, governance and marriage and that desires do not justify behavior and civilization is essentially nothing but discipline against destructive desires. In this context, marriage as an institution is the most structured mechanism for disciplining destructive desires in modernism, implying that it is the only mechanism that protects our civilization. But let's deal with the second concept, that the first religious one is simpler in conclusion.

The basic features of traditional marriage are the union of a heterosexual couple, special bonds with children, and exclusivity. So, marriage must have the feature of heterosexual spousal exclusivity, to be considered such and socially healthy. But why? Many sociological and legal scholars conclude that in traditional marriages, carnal union involves bodily coordination with the goal of obtaining a bodily good, and the biological good of carnal union is reproduction. Reproduction as a bodily good is not only such, but also a public good. This public good can only be brought into society through the union of a man and a woman, who are the only ones who can conceive and shape it.

In the union of persons of the same sex, the physical good cannot be achieved as a public good, and since reproduction, i.e. children, are the meaning of marriage itself, then in the case of homosexuals, the union cannot be considered marriage precisely because of the inability to bring a bodily good. Although same-sex unions can provide children from laboratory processes, they still lose the exclusive quality that a heterosexual couple has, because the child in the test tube belongs to a trio of parents, two homosexuals and one anonymous, who tomorrow cause a psychological dilemma of strong identity and self-perception of the child.

Dallimi te martesat heteroseksuale është se ato kanë veti trashëgueshmërie, pra përfundon me një trashëgimtar dhe produkt që është e mirë publike, ndërsa martesat homoseksuale maksimumi mund të prodhojnë një soj “emocioni” i cili nuk ka vlerë trashëgueshmërie dhe si i tillë del nga tipologjia e bashkësisë bashkëshortore ekskluzive. Mbështetësit e martesave të të njëjtit seks pretendojnë se edhe çiftet heteroseksuale sterile martohen e adoptojnë fëmijë dhe bashkimi i tyre quhet martesë, përse kjo nuk duhet të ngjajë me homoseksualët, të cilët mund të adoptojnë edhe ata fëmijë? Themi, se familjet tradicionale pa fëmijë të shkaktuar si pasojë e sterilitetit apo arsyeve të tjera të bashkëshortëve, quhet martesë, sepse ata potencialisht janë prokrijues, riprodhues dhe realiteti në të cilin ata jetojnë nuk është vullneti i tyre. Ndërsa çiftet homoseksuale janë që në premisë joriprodhues dhe vullneti i tyre qëndron pikërisht në të kundërtën, se duan të bashkohen duke mos pasur asnjë shans thelbi martesor riprodhimi.

Fëmijët e adoptuar nuk krijojnë atë lidhjen biologjike me prindërit, sepse martesa reale tradicionale në fund të fundit është një premtim solemn përgjegjësish, e cila çon drejt realiteteve morale që krijojnë përgjegjësi mes palëve. Nuk është thjesht prezenca e dy prindërve, por është prezenca e dy prindërve biologjikë që ndikon në zhvillimin pozitiv tek fëmijët. Fëmijët e adoptuar nëse kanë dy gra si prindër nuk do të dinë përgjigjet e një babai dhe ato fëmijë që kanë dy meshkuj si prindër, nuk do të kenë kurrë përgjigjet e një nëne. Tek martesat homoseksuale del në pah një hendek i madh mes martesës dhe prindërimit, i cili padyshim çon në shpërbërjen e idealit të familjes. Burri dhe gruaja në një familje normale sjellin prurje të ndryshme psikologjike në procesin e prindërimit, prurje të cilat nuk mund të garantohen kurrë nga dy individë seksualisht të njëjtë, të cilët nuk garantojnë nesër asnjë përgjegjësi ndaj një fëmije të adoptuar, që në fund të fundit nuk është i tyri.

If we were to base marriage only on emotion and sex, then the reason to get married would automatically fall, not only that, but since the emotional side is not stable, then even if marriage was based only on this element, it would not be it was also stable. To be sustainable, it needs a factor of stability and responsibility, which is summed up in reproduction. Therefore, the attempt to redefine marriage on "emotional union" and not on procreation, through bringing children into life, is an attempt that is crowned with the change of the legal framework as long as the latter also shapes the cultural norms of a society, then basically, this initiative aims to change the cultural base and shake one of the important pillars of society that is still standing, such as marriage. So, the transformation, more than in the legal aspect, the supporters of gay marriage want to do in the culture. To do this they must change "public reason" and to change public reason, they must also provide reasonable evidence for the human being.

Making a little opposition with the positivist approach that exists today in the world regarding the nature of the law, if it constitutes and contains a moral context, we can say that the law itself, as a regulator of societies, is based on two important premises, that of the moral dimension of and the complementary effect it has on the public normality of the individual. The moral dimension of the law, even though it is not clearly defined in its functions, is a dimension that originates from the premise of the law. Because the law is established by societies to preserve, maintain and maintain some universal moral values. Today's laws which punish, fine, and in some countries even execute, basically have as evaluation criteria the moral approach or not of individuals with society, their violations or not in relation to this legal framework. The debate on homosexuals, as well as other debates of the nature of individual rights, are points where society meets its own cracks in terms of understanding the concept of freedom. The understanding of freedom includes the way in which the individual's role and responsibilities in society are projected. It is above all a debate about freedom, because almost all the categories that want to "break the chains" of the present and the historical, in the name of a new concept, do so on feelings and emotions and also based on public reasons. And if they seek to justify this in the framework of human rights, then every human right does not stand outside of public reason and everything else that is not public reason is not considered a human right.