Shireroth

I wonder if anyone else has a similar or differing opinion on this. We all know that homosexuality is natural in as much that it derives from certain root biological, sociological, and in some cases cultural, causes. However to say it is natural is not to say that it is normal. Homosexuality must perforce be a deviation from the norm otherwise how else would a population of any given species derive sustainability? Homosexuality is natural to some but not normal to the majority of human beings, as such it represents a tolerated aberration.Homosexuals are obviously covered by the same politically expedient conceit, that of the notion of universal rights, which cover the rest of us - and yet how has it come to pass that we are reaching the stage where the value placed upon their relationships have come to be considered as being of equal validity to the institution of marriage? This is not a question of the state acting out of some egalitarian desire to recognise that a true and sincere bond love and affection between two individuals - for the state does blithely ignore common law partnerships between heterosexual couples. It is about the state allowing homosexual couples to formalise their relationship on a contractual basis. Very nice for them I am sure. However to what end are these civil partnerships being established?Civil partnerships for same sex couples grant legal protection and recognition similar to that granted by marriage - but to what end? Why does the state grant formal recognition to any relationship? It does so because it believes that the relationship will have a utility for the benefit of society. Were it not for the possibility of breeding and raising children inherent in heterosexual unions, the state and society would have no particular interest in encouraging citizens to come together in a committed relationship. True, homosexual couples may have children by surrogacy or artificial insemination, so on and so forth, but it is such a convoluted means of conception that it is purely egotism on their part to seek to raise a child, akin to the politicisation of their sexuality which made them think it important to campaign for the right to marry or have their partnership certified official in the first place. To be sure child rearing is not the only reasons couples have for marrying, but the stable environment it provides is the only reason why society since the earliest times has found it a useful institution to maintain, and has done so even at times when marriage became almost purely a commercial transaction. Marriage and the conceiving and rearing of children are in so many ways fundamentally linked. Suppose that some catastrophe destroys modern civilisation and humanity reverts to some darker age in such an event monogamous, committed, heterosexual and productive relationships between men and women are the only thing that will enable the species to survive. Society has an interest in promoting marriage as the environment for procreation and child rearing.