Any rational individual knows that marriage was created as a social institution to support heterosexual reproduction setting aside and recognizing and special the family relationship. Any citizen is free to participate in that establishment if they wish. Homosexual relationships on the other hand are not able to procreate; if homosexuals could procreate share their genes in progeny it would be discriminatory not to allow them to marry too. Since homosexual couplings are ‘air guitars’ so far as marriage goes it is not at all discriminatory to those relationships ineligible to marry.
Males that apply assert homosexual behavior as a reason for special social privileges that corrupt political accuracy of meaning in the promulgating law are a post hoc expropriation of a political establishment that was in no way created with their behavior in mind. Laws made for particular purposes should not be applied too broadly on irrelevant purposes through the middle term exchange medium of obfuscation rubric of equal rights. Let me provide an example…
A city’s sanitation workers laboring in the hot, smelly inner city environment collecting government clave trash are restive about their pay and working conditions. Every day they see the lofty jet flying high overhead in the sky and have read in discarded newspapers cast into the trash that air traffic controllers make seven times the pay that they do. The sanitation workers know that striking would be ineffective at some point as the National Guard would move in and haul garbage. So the trash-persons hire a Chicago lawyer educated at Harvard to file lawsuits claiming that garbage persons ought to be called Air traffic controllers too in order to have equal pay and benefits plus retirement and fully stocked refrigerators in time-share condo rights.
It seems as if there is a legal trend toward redistributing benefits and establishments within a social environment with untruthful equivocation of eligibility of citizens for simply being human. That kind of inaccuracy in law is harmful to democracy and the effort of citizens to be free from inimical or mockish corruption of law traditionally conferring benefits upon the rich and powerful with that simple expedient redistributing power-in-reality to especially corrupt interests.
Democracy ought to have its will in legal meanings respected rather than corrupted. Homosexual marriage bans should exist simply because homosexuals cannot theoretically procreate. It may be that the desire of zero population growth advocates to halt the increase of human population makes marriage an undesirable establishment. Homosexual marriage is effectively a contradiction of marriage’s purpose. There are alternative ways to support continuity of a human environment within a vibrant ecosphere that could be innovated.
One might as well find it discrimination to tax the rich differently than the poor. Some states have decided that parents have no right to provide psychological counseling to children duped into homosexual affairs or to ‘return young homos to heterosexuality. When the government bans particular psychological counseling ideas that seems a great intrusion into freedom to think and right to privacy regions protected by the constitution of the United States. The federal government seems to wish to compel z.p.g. through the cut of homosexuality. One wonders if Bruce Genner is really undergoing a sex change-or was that an Internet tabloid sort of story? Wouldn’t it be better to donate the medical costs to surgery for needy African children instead of some sort of superfluous medical fruitifying for p.r. or psychological purposes? Must the U.S.A. be such a decadent nation without good sense, intellect or the ability to find positive ways for the human journey to and beyond a new, sustainable ecopheric frontier, work ethic, lifestyle and value criterion able to respect human dignity and not simply provide dog biscuits to people boxes with queer content inside until population reduce so the winners can consume as much with a tenth of the population of 2100 A.D.?
There may be numerous ways that homosexuals could be provided with special social benefits for being queer with one another that legislators may want to provide. It may be reasonable that government retirement benefits for homosexual couplings might be made to exist with an economic parity with that of married heterosexuals. It is not reasonable however to corrupt the historical establishment of marriage post facto in order redistribute or increase what is regarded as equal rights. That practice that some courts have so far forced upon several state dishonors the legal institutions of the United States as well as the stare decisis of God and history.