The assumption here is that the purpose of marriage is to have children and be parents. There is little relation. You can be a parent without being married and you can be married without having children.
I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
Enjoy ...
HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
Since you asked…
1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.
2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.
3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.
4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.
5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.
6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.
7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.