Onlyconservativeshavefamilies,
I am not a Christian, I am not a bigot, I am a conservative and in this general election I will vote Republican.
Gays are not disallowed from marriage. A gay man can marry any kind of woman who will have him. The same holds true for gay women marrying any man who will join her in this sort of union. Heck, even a straight man couldn’t marry another straight man if they wanted. So, lets not get too caught up in thinking that this is a gay issue. The issue is whether the state and society should view the union of same-sex partners (whatever their sexual preference) as they do the union between the opposite sexes. I don’t think they should.
There is no such thing as a homosexual head of a family. A family is a unit of people in which couples produces offspring. This production of offspring gives rise to primary, secondary and tertiary (often time more distant relationships are observed as well) relationships between the members of the family. Gay sex does not produce offspring and so leads to a genetic dead end with no primary, secondary or tertiary relationships for future generations. The head of a family may participate in gay sexual practices but that would make them bi-sexual and these same sex partners have never been given family status on the basis of their sexual relationship.
Equality under the law does not equate to the same benefits given to everyone. Not everyone has the benefits provided by affirmative action. Not everyone pays the same taxes. Equality under the law is primarily meant to keep the judiciary branch from assigning special privileges to competing members during a trial.
The tax breaks given to families was and is meant to ease the tax burden on those who are bringing new people to the society and thus offering an avenue for the continuation of the nation. Homosexuals do not procreate and do not bring new people to function in society. Marriage is a union whose purpose is the making of a family. Why should people who will not make a family be given these benefits?
One can argue that homosexual couples can adopt and thus make a family. I think it much better for children who have no family to get one. If a gay couple wishes to adopt, I think they are providing a great service to society by giving love to children who need it. That said, they can be given the same benefits as any other family. I just don’t see the point of calling it marriage. Call it a civil union.
It seems to be you who is insisting on divorcing the meaning of marriage from its historical purpose. Marriage is a binding obligation of a society to give relative status to those who are of a family. Marriage contracts define inheritance, who will care for orphaned children, who will be responsible for anti-social behavior by the children, and who will be respected for producing offspring that contribute to society. No one on the right wishes to stop folks on the left from marrying. We just don’t see why the left should be allowed to redefine an ancient and universal system for the sake of a small portion of the population. You can dress it up in platitudes of civil liberties but in truth your movement is about changing the meaning of marriage and causing harm to society, so a small part of the population can fluff up their chest and say they have made us all change for them.
