A blogger; Marriage is not just about procreation, both for individuals and the state, and it never was. Marriage is even more so not about “the” [sic?] these days. The varied state interests apply no matter the sexual alignment of the couple. Inequality is unjustified.
So you say. I disagree. And so do most all the states. See Map. There is no inequality in marriage being limited to heterosexual couples with the potential for procreation, who role-model the pro-creative unit to future generations, even if they are childless for any reason. Every man and woman has freedom and EQUAL RIGHT to become a hetero couple –if they can find a willing partner. But marriage, by definition, has ALWAYS, historically, everywhere –been the union of man with wife (or wives (plural) in some unequal, unenlightened instances.)
The creation model is Adam and Eve, The Jewish model is Abraham and Sarah (and what a mess they started by letting the wife give the maid to him, bearing Ishmael, claimed by Muslims as their ancestor.) Also Noah and sons and their wives. The OT also says a man should “stay with the wife of his youth.” Then there was John and Elizabeth, parents of John the Baptist, and Mary and Joseph, parents of JEsus –and finally Christ’s words saying a man should leave parents and cleave to his wife and never divorce–cleave to EVE, not STeve. And the NT also says the exemplary leaders of the Church should have only one wife.
As for polygamy, the two religions that permit polygamy happen to have both been started by “angel” communications to one founder each –Mormonism and Islam. Lucifer appears as an angel of light.
II Corinthians 11:13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. [Some Mullahs and Imams, fomenting terrorism –all of them propagating untruth of Islam.] Their end will be what their actions deserve.
There is no biological justification for recognizing gay unions same as hetero. Any benefits in the law are for procreative couples and those who model procreative units before the children. Children don’t need the confusion about sex and sexuality which is generated by homosexuals.
Homosexuals (as well as promiscuous straights) lure people into non-procreative sex addiction. The more we affirm homosexuality, and the more we are dysfunctional as hetero couples with divorce, etc. –the more homosexuals we will produce. We already see where non-gay men “on the downlow” –i.e. men who have sex with men –see homosexual acts as legitimate, non-relational, impersonal sexual recreation –like prisoners and congressmen in airport bathrooms.
Homosexual orientation is something to study and prevent and attempt to fix — it is not to be accommodated as “the same as –or equal to” heterosexuality. Homosexuality is simply counter to our bodily design and purpose. You can’t dignify it with “marriage.” It will always seem both unfortunate and bizarre to those who have the blessing of good heterosexual role modeling in their families and culture.
Good ploy to try to say homosexuality is genetic, inborn, a race, or a disability –and thus we should help homosexuals find one another for happiness together. We should be kind without creating new definitions and examples of “marriage” and “family” which will only be hard on their children and confusing to all children about the issues of sex and sexuality, gender identity and orientation. Gay marriage gives license to something that we should teach and help our children to avoid. Because however orgasms are first experienced with others, they are addictive and affecting the self-image as male or female, gay or straight."God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible