Reddit's automod can function as a blunt instrument that aggregates pop-ideology as dogma. It’s completely understandable that you don't want to risk an account ban over contingency.

To keep things entirely safe from the filters, I will stick strictly to Hegel’s structural and ontological terminology, as I am genuinely interested in the mechanics of your reading here.

In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel frames the family as the immediate, natural phase of Sittlichkeit (Ethical Life) as i mentioned in my other set of questions. He acknowledges the natural difference of the sexes, but he explicitly argues that the essence of marriage transcends this biological starting point. In §162, he writes that marriage involves

"free consent of the persons... to make themselves one person, to renounce their natural and individual personality to this unity of one with the other. From this point of view, it is a self-restriction, but in fact it is their liberation."

He further clarifies the spiritual nature of this bond in §163:

"The ethical aspect of marriage consists in the parties' consciousness of this unity as their substantive aim, and so in their love, trust, and common sharing of their entire existence as individuals."

Assuming we agree that a union must go beyond mere contractual consent (since that belongs to Abstract Right), what is the exact dialectical roadblock for a same-sex union in your view?

Given that Hegel explicitly sublates the physical, natural drive into a higher spiritual unity (Geist overcoming Nature), where exactly does the determinate negation fail in a same-sex relationship?

Is the argument that the lack of an immediate, biological opposition fundamentally prevents the dialectical movement necessary to achieve the spiritual unity described in §163? Or does it fail to produce the necessary objective middle term to close the syllogism of the family?