Since I wrote this, I have had something of a change of conclusion on this topic. Not because I have changed the opinions I wrote below, but because the basis/criterion for marriage in our country is not really as I described it. The one I used is, essentially, obsolete.
We no longer, in fact, consider marriage a contract between a reproducing couple and Society for the purpose of raising up the next generation of mothers and warriors. We, pretty much, as a historically ill-educated mob, believe marriage to be about (awwwww.....) "love".
You know, something akin to big-eyed puppies and rainbow-farting unicorns.
So, since we have descended into this morass of effulgent emotionalism, we no longer have an argument to keep people from marrying chimps or goats or their mommies. If marriage is about (awwwww......) "love" (and it seems that we have, as a culture, decided that it is) refusing to allow gays to marry is just kind of pointless and a little cruel.
After all, they (awwwww.....) "love" each other.
My argument below was operating on notions and societal rules that are no longer in effect. We passed beyond that boundary sometime while we were sleeping.
The Gunslinger (February 19, 2011)
Marriage recognized by the state is a privilege...not a right. And society deems it good to reward the privilege of marriage to those people who are willing to vow fidelity to each other for the purpose of making and raising the next generation.
"Marriage" is not about "love" or the "fulfillment of the partners" or any other such drivel. It is about the recognition by society that couples thus dedicated will be taking on the burden of perpetuating the species.
Homosexual unions simply don't qualify for this particular privilege.
Society does, actually, have some right to determine upon whom it will confer privileges.
And every privilege conferred by society is not a "civil right" automatically due to everyone.
Homosexuals have the EXACT same right to marry as I do. I have to marry a member of the opposite sex. So do they. There is no "discrimination" at all.
They want "special" rights for themselves: The privilege of marriage without the duties & responsibilities.
(Gay adoption...is part of the radical homosexual "marriage" agenda, it is not an argument, it's circular reasoning!)
It's quite simple really.
Heterosexuality is the norm. Obviously. If it were not, we would not be here. Heterosexuality is the planetary norm. Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.
Assuming for the moment that homosexuality is inherent, it may be considered "natural", but it can't be considered "normal".
I don't hate homosexuals anymore than I hate people born blind. But it makes as much sense to privilege homosexuals with marriage as to privilege the blind with drivers licenses.
They are not qualified.