The ones coming to mind has to do with abortion and same sex relationships.[/quote]
Oh, well I’m right-wing Christian Conservative so I’ll field this. I don’t want to outlaw pre-marital sex. It is a sin according to my faith. So is abortion. However, abortion involves the taking of a human life, therefore, it becomes a legitimate political/legal issue. Any other position is cowardly and hypocritical.
Secondly, I don’t want to outlaw homosexuality. Again, a sin according to my faith. But, do I want government to put it up on a pedestal by elevating it through state recognized marriage? Nope. It’s no more special than a friendship or any other imaginative human relationship, as far as the government should be concerned. I won’t tolerate unjustifiable bigotry. Despite how tightly wound up it is in an emotional fad. Traditional marriage , by it’s biological/procreative nature produces the next worker and the next taxpayer, en masse.
A state and free market has a vested interest in children who stay out of jail, enjoy a positively adjusted socio-economic status, a status widespread enough to shoulder whatever tax burden, fill whatever positions are left by retirees, care for their own children when they themselves are adults, provide for their own elderly, etc. So, making a model of traditional marriage is justifiable discrimination. Imagine homosexuality disappearing tomorrow. Curious event? Yes? Catastrophic? Nope, just an odd event. Now imagine heterosexuality disappearing tomorrow. Catastrophic.
Intact biological homes producing and raising their own children provide a critical and irreplaceable service to society. Otherwise, we wouldn’t sit here arguing about why aren’t we recognizing homosexual marriage. We’d be arguing about why we recognize any. “Who says their relationship is more important than my friendships. Or, even my casual relationships?”[/quote]
I agree with you that an anti-abortion stance does not represent a creeping of religious morals into political life because it does in fact involve the termination of a life.
But re: gay marriage: heterosexual marriage is not procreative, in that heterosexuals are under no obligation to create offspring, often do not have any desire to, and sometimes are not capable of doing doing so. Should a barren woman’s love for her boyfriend be denied marital legitimacy in the same way that you believe a man’s love for his male partner should, given that both couples have exactly the same chance of creating a “future taxpayer.”
And more broadly, your definition of marriage as essentially a factory for future citizens is as clinical and Orwellian as it could possibly be. Procreation is a function of heterosexual intercourse, nothing more.