Marriage is for Babies

It's interesting to me.

The gays and their supporters tend to ignore the responsibility that comes with heterosexual intercourse: Potential for pregnancy. We have the responsibility to prevent until ready to conceive. We also have the added joy of making love in order to produce offspring with the one we love.

Isn’t the production of offspring really the natural motivation for sex in the first place?

For a homosexual the aim is strictly to get one or the other’s rocks off which surely can be considered an expression of love. But, to enjoy the passion with one’s life-long partner of creating a being is something gays cannot fully understand or enjoy. Of course they’ll tell us all that this isn’t so, that I’m a bigot or misinformed, and that homo is the SAME as hetero in EVERY way!Gays want to arm-chair quarter back and tell us they'd be good parents just like the rest.

Baby’s are something you make with a lover, not something you go shopping for like a pet. Every time most hetero’s do it there is this chance that a new life will result from the passion. Sure there are outlier arguments like some are sterile, old, or effectively preventing but of course these arguments would miss the mark.

Other than non-monogamous bi's, Gays don't deal with life changing "accidents” like the ones I’ve described. It's easy to stand back and say, "I'd be the best parent on Earth." We really don't know until we expectedly or unexpectedly face the responsibility and commitment that comes with a conception. I find it actually disrespectful for Gays to ignore this responsibility every hetero faces that virtually NO homosexual does. It's a "cake and eat it too" scenario, this support for the "Gay Marriage" issue. They want recognition or validation because they have sex.

There are many great reasons "marriage" reform might be in order when it comes to sharing work benefits or getting tax breaks or sharing responsibilities or inheritance, etc. None of this reasoning has anything to do with having sex unless children are involved. I mean where do NON sexuals fit into this picture? Shouldn’t we be arguing on their behalf, too? Don’t they deserve to commit to a pal with whom sex never occurs in order to secure the benefits that come with committing to a relationship? Why do we need to define a relationship based on sexual activity unless children are to result from it?

Of course I am all for promoting monogamy because it quells a bunch of heartache and disease propagation. However there are at least three ways to be in a monogamous sexual relationship: Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman. Why does the gay world insist that one word fits all for these relationships?

Without looking it up I'd bet the first million American civil unions were marriages of the heterosexual sort. Claim was staked to the term "marriage" long before there was even an America. Why not seek a new term to go with this new and forward thinking lifestyle rather than give credence to an idealogy defined by the homosexual "civil rights" movement to prevent a word from being specifically defined?