Should the government recognize homosexual unions the same as heterosexual marriages?
Why heterosexuals get benefits from the government.
Its not a complicated issue at hand when it comes to why the government would even get involved in something like marriage. I think the problem people have right away with the marriage issue is they think it's all about love. Although that may be the reason many people want to get married, the government does not care about romance, or who your soul mate is. They only care about social construct and ensuring the next generation. Studies show that when kids grow up in household where couples are married and involved in a loving monogamous relationship, they are more likely to lead healthy productive lives (http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/30-years-of-research-that-tells-us-a-child-deserves-a-mother-and-a-father/). Obviously there are always unusual circumstances that take place that will not line up with these studies. However, the government also does not make laws based on unusual circumstances. Laws come from what is the general functions of things.
Not all heterosexuals marriages have kids.
This is true. However, be it that parents don't want or can't have children doesn't matter. As mentioned earlier laws and regulations are not made and enforced due to exceptional circumstances. They are determined by the general rule. If the law was changed every time an unusual or special circumstance was brought to our attention, there would be no order, and laws would be meaningless.
How were you raised?
Homosexuals can adopt and raise the next generation.
That's true. There is no argument that a same sex couple can be great parents to adopted children. Yes, in many cases kids may even be better off with a loving same sex couple as opposed to a heterosexual couple who arent fit to a part of society , let alone raise children. However adoption is not "producing the next generation". Homosexuals in a sense must take what heterosexual relationship produced. Besides that, this an exception to the general rule and an extreme circumstance. Best case scenario is that kids have both a mother and a father. (http://www.cfcidaho.org/why-children-need-male-and-female-parent). You can even argue that there are many kids who only have 1 parent. Even though this is a problem in our society, that is not the best case scenario for the child. The issue at hand is best case scenerio for the development of the child and family unit. Studies show child development is at its best when kids grow up in a family where they have both a mother and a father. The reason is there are rolls each one plays that is beneficial and necessary for development.
Homosexual just want the same rights as heterosexuals
Many complain that homsexauls just want the same rights heterosexuals have. Lets think about his for a minute. It seems that they do have the same rights. Both heterosexual and homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and receive benefits from our government. The reason being as hinted at earlier is heterosexual unions by nature produce and sustain the next generation. Before you scream "they don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex!", it should also be noted there is no law, in any state, in the U.S. that says a same sex couple can't rent a venue, hold a ceremony, invite friends and family, express love and vows to each other, and put a ring on each others finger. That is legal in every state. There is also no law preventing a same sex couple from sharing home ownership and property other rights we all have. So the real issue becomes, why doesn't the government recognize it and give the same benefits? Well, that question was already answered. Homosexual couples by nature do not produce the next generation. The government has no obligation to give benefits to every human couple on any relational status. Heterosexual couples in a committed monogamous relationship play a unique roll in society, therefore receiving the benefits.
But there are rights that are not equally given.
That's true. The two of the biggest concerns have been over health insurance and hospital visitations. However, although a discrimination, its not directed at homosexual relationships. Its discriminatory to any relationship not concerned , as the general rule , with producing and sustaining the next generation. If a man wants to visit a girlfriend in the hospital , he may be denied the same kind of access give to a husband. It isn't gender related or homosexual discrimination. Its just that unique benefits are given to a unique relationship playing a specific role in society.
Just want to express our love
That's a good thing to do. First though, there are many way to express love. Secondly and more important to the issue is that the government does not care if you actually love each other. Its irrelevant to receiving benefits. Remember , there is no law against a same sex couple "getting married" to show their commitment and love to each other. It just isn't recognized by the government, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Before running off and pointing the finger at people for unfair treatment and bigotry, we should just take step back and look closer at the details. What is really going on in this very hotly debated topic in our culture today has nothing to do with being treated fairly. As i have shown there is no unfair treatment. Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do the why the government would step into to anything and give special benefits to anyone. We don't all get benefits from or special treatment in all area's of our lives. That's because we all play unique rolls and add something very specific to society, be it bad or good. The good tends to be rewarded. The bad gets punished. The indifferent gets nothing.