Non-religious Argument Against Homosexual “Marriage”

Equal Rights

Let’s dismantle this argument about “equal rights.” First, you must establish that the institution of marriage IS a right. Then you must DEFINE that institution. For most Americans, the institution of marriage is the union between two members of opposite genders with the potential (but not the guarantee) of reproduction. A male and a female can theoretically produce off-spring given the right conditions.

Privacy

Now, it’s not business of the government to dictate whether or not any two individuals actually WILL or are capable of reproduction, but you can assume, without any violation of privacy, that a man and a woman can reproduce.

A homosexual relationship can NEVER produce offspring in ANY situation. There is no violation of privacy involved because it is a biological fact that you need a male and a female for human beings to create offspring.

Thus, you can argue, without ever bringing religion into it, that marriage is the institution between a man and a woman.

Reproduction not Love

It is NOT the job of the government to endorse, promote, or approve of “love.” But it is in the best interest of the government to promote, endorse, and approve of reproduction to ensure the continuation and growth of a nation.

The question then becomes, is homosexual marriage a matter of equality? Well, can a homosexual couple reproduce? No. So they do not have equal qualifications to a heterosexual couple. In this instance, biologically, they are not equal.

From the perspective of the government, then, the question should be whether or not a union incapable of reproduction deserves special treatment.

Is the government telling you who to love? Certainly not. There is no law against loving anyone. Not all marriages even between heterosexual couples are based on love.

So, should the government endorse relationships based on the arbitrary concept of “love”? I don’t think so.

Philosophy…Except Only Mine

How then do we define love? Are we saying we’re going to define a philosophical concept yet deny the right of a majority of the country to use their philosophical point of view (religion)? How is THAT fair?

I don’t think it’s any business of the government to decide what is and is not love or to regulate love in any way shape or form. I do, however, know it IS the responsibility of the government to make sure people are reproducing and creating new offspring lest the country cease to exist.

On those grounds alone, I have every right to say homosexual “marriage” is a manipulation of the system that has no positive effect on society other than to make sexual deviants feel accepted.