|
Here is my reasoning why the government should not allow homosexual marriage:
Our country (USA, but it can apply anywhere) is based on people. Duh, it seems pretty clear that having a population of reproducing organisms is important. Marriage was created as a specific union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of making a family (e.g. babies).
All of the agreements and oaths taken in marriage can be reproduced through one or more contracts; the sharing of funds, dual custody, etc. The real issue is tax breaks, insurance coverage... Money. Gays want to have the same preferential treatment the government gives to the traditional marriage concept, and that is not right.
Marriage is a clear term which signifies the union of a man and a woman. The government, insurance companies, etc. recognise this union as something that should be supported. Why should the government not support (but also not outlaw) homosexuality? A good way of determining if something should be supported is by imagining what would happen if everyone was doing it. After all, everyone has equal rights, correct?
If everyone was homosexual, besides some artificial insemination cases our population would die out within a generation. Obviously man-woman pairs is to be encouraged.
Marriage already has an established meaning. Even if only out of principle we should avoid changing words that have a perfectly good meaning.
|