God hates homosexuals. According to Leviticus He also hates shrimp, cotton/poly blends, and tattoos. So why are those abominations subject to change but homosexuality is still considered a sin?
The discussion about gay marriages brings up the curious logic traditionalists use to defend the sanctity and purpose of a traditional heterosexual marriage.
The Washington State Supreme Court recently upheld a 1998 ban on gay marriages and ruled that “limiting marriage to opposite sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.”(they said children three times). Marriage doesn’t promote procreation, but procreation certainly promotes marriage. My parents married because mom got pregnant first. As far as I can tell the institute of marriage has survived the presence of homosexuals and my parents pre-emptive strike.
Recently the Court of Appeals in Oregon upheld the ban on gay marriages. As Nick Graham from the Defense of Marriage Coalition said “Marriage between one man and one woman is ideal for raising children.” True but not all who marry, raise children. (Thank God these out of state people are setting Oregonians straight). Following their logic, should non procreating unions also be banned? Perhaps we should remove children from single parents for their own good. While we're at it, let's get rid of common law unions, I mean a child's parents should be legally married right?
On a planet of six billion people, procreation isn’t the sole purpose of marriage anymore. The weird part is that a gay couple can adopt a child, they just can’t give that children the legal protection marriage offers.
Same sex unions will disrupt the traditional family and harm children, the critics argue, despite numerous studies to the contrary. Critics see same sex marriages as a threat to traditional families. The ruin of the traditional family are dysfunctional parents, shifting social and economic demo graphs, the high divorce rate, and daddy preferring to cruise the internet for porn rather than talk to the family. Blaming those factors is complex and thorny, blaming homosexuals is easier and cheaper.
Opinions about homosexual marriages compares to the public opinion towards interracial marriages. In 1969 when interracial marriages became legal in every state, a Gallup poll showed 75% of Americans disapproved of such marriages. In 1991 that a majority shifted by a slim margin to 48%; today about 30% still disapprove. In a Pew Research Center poll conducted in March 2006, only 51% of Americans opposed marriage for same-sex couples, down from the 65% in 1996. Mind you, this looming, threatening group out to destroy the very fabric of the precious family as we know it, comprises less than 10% of the general population.
Banning gay marriages could lead to further discrimination. What’s to stop the morality police from outlawing common law marriages between heterosexual couples? Will they demand that all marriages be sanctified in the church of their choice or your marriage will be null and void by the state and your children considered bastards like the good old days? Will they demand that the state prosecute those who commit adultery like recent cases in Virginia, Massachusetts, Alabama, and Pennsylvania? Louisiana recently voted to ban heterosexual civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.
Marriage isn’t defended by preventing people from marrying. Reducing the 51% divorce rate and stopping spousal abuse are more positive and productive ways to protect it. People once believed that interracial marriage or allowing women to vote would weaken the American family. It hasn’t and I doubt allowing gays to enter into a monogamous, loving marriage is going to either.