Two questions:
1. What are the relationships you believe changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples would presumably open the door to?
2. How does changing the definition of marriage from “a binding social institution intended to pressure a man and woman to stay together” to “a binding…to pressure a couple to…” change the way it influences those involved?
Yes. What homosexuals want is to have their union classified as “marriage”.
The issue here is a civil institution that a gay couple does not have access to in the majority of American states. To say that they have access to marriage simply if they choose to marry a member of the opposite sex means they do not have access at all. Your perception of marriage is couched in the notion that homosexuality is unnatural as was dictated by God.
This presupposes the following:
1. The ultimate goal of marriage is to procreate and to pressure the parents to remain together.
This doesn’t explain why: first, there are people who marry and choose not to have children; and second, why the divorce rate is so high regardless of the presence of children.
2. That the superiority of heterosexual couples over homosexual couples is based on the ability to procreate.
I’d argue that the ability to procreate in no way denotes any kind of natural (I’m assuming here that nature is equated to morality in your mind, correct me if I’m wrong) superiority; in fact I hold that it is the ability RAISE a child that makes one couple inherently superior. And I’ve yet to see any evidence elevating one orientation over the other in this regard.
Is a heterosexual relationship the only way to perpetuate humanity? Not if you allow for the possibility of artificial insemination or surrogacy. Is the only way to create a child from the genetic material of a man and woman? Absolutely. This is just a matter of fact: man+woman=child.
Now, after the responsibility of procreation is taken care of, what about the responsibility of perpetuating society? This is where the raising of a child becomes more important than the act of creating that child, seeing as said child now exists and therefore must be shaped into a well adjusted member of society.
Despite the fact that artificial insemination or surrogacy are viable options for same sex couples who want to have a child, the alternative often looked at as best is adoption. “Protecting the definition of marriage does not in any way prevent gay couples from raising adopted children.” Look at the sate of Alabama; they’ve passed legislation that prevents any unmarried person(s) from adopting. How does preventing a gay couple from “marrying” not hinder their ability to raise adopted children in this case? Beyond that, how does barring a percentage of people who want to adopt help orphaned children?
3. Your concept of reality is based around the existence of God who created all that is.
We share this concept. Where we differ is in the idea that any deviation from what is “natural” is inferior to the accepted norm. This is, at its root, a spiritual belief. And regardless of whether or not our nation was founded on Christian or secular beliefs, it was created with the purpose of protecting one group or individual from being discriminated against by the spiritual beliefs of another.
Your position is wrong. It hurts people and limits their choices in life relative to the rest of us. I’m not gay so I don’t presume to represent their position, but like anyone else, I can choose to voice my views on the subject.
So far in my discussions with people out in the world or in reading forums here on the internets, there has not been a single legitimate reason presented that could convince me that barring same sex marriage is in the interest of the vast majority.
