Even though voters in California voted down 'gay marriage' a few years ago, homosexuals and liberals kept pushing to put it on the ballot and in the end, it passed.
In Michigan, they are deciding whether to ban 'gay marriage.' But in Michigan they are arguing that "businesses can deny service based on religious beliefs." RELIGIOUS?? And in Arizona, where Jan Brewer has done an excellent job of protecting her state, she has to decide to allow or not allow 'gay marriage.'
Very simply put, only males and females can produce children. Thousands of years ago, as people became more concerned about the purity of their lineage, the sacrament of marriage was instituted. It was created so that children in a family had the same parents.
Now, we aren't talking RELIGION here and should not be. Religions do perform marriage ceremonies as they do baptisms, confirmations, death and first communions. These are ceremonies developed to celebrate a transition in life.
Homosexuality is a preference for sex with the same sex. So is sex between men and boys. These preferences are sexual, not religious.
The argument against 'same sex marriage' then is that marriage was created for heterosexual people that can produce children. The sacrament of matrimony cannot grant same sex marriage and still be Matrimony. It would have to be called something else.
The point isn't that homosexuals want to have the same 'rights' as heterosexuals. It's that they are creating a section of society that has heterosexual priviledges that non-heterosexuals want. Does anyone really want a society where the creation of a child becomes a pawn? So that homosexuals can adopts non-homosexual children just to 'look' legitimate?
Marriage does have its priviledges but so do homosexuals and they need to find their own Union that does not make a mockery of Matrimony. Homosexuals not only want the legitimacy of marriage....they want the same financial benefits and that is not a good enough reason to destroy Matrimony.
