Weherd goats. Very many of them. So many it would blow your mind.Big goats, small goats, roan goats, brown goats, white goats, black goats, horned-goats, 'beef' goats, 'dairy' goats, old goats, young goats-- VERY many goats! When goats have kids, the mothers care for them for about six months and then the poor things are left to fend for themselves. That's not to say they suffer in any way, because by then the kids have grown and can eat grass and tree leaves just like the adults. In fact, soon enough they become mothers of their own kids too.
It's amazing how fast they grow, compared to human brats. It amazes me! The suckling, the changing of diapers, toilet-training, shots and other duties require two human adults to complete the whole task -- if society wants to wind up with well-baked products! And what better pair to bring up the brat than its biological parents? On the other hand, it requires only one goat to bring up a kid.
So then men discovered marriage. And when states and governments were formed among them, they recognized these marriages because society knew that given enough latitude, a lot of people would leave the job of raising up a kid to one parent. Marriage made sure that kids were well taken care of in a family environment. This is beginning to change because society has lost its power (or maybe desire) to reason objectively. In fact, a certain poll shows that a third of the American population sees nothing particularly awry about recognizing gay marriages. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay, just that the idea of recognizing a gay marriage is myopic.
So the million-dollar question is: why, in heaven's name would the state want to recognize unions between gay couples and elevate them as 'marriages'? A heterosexual union, which has the intrinsic potential for children, is the only personal contract of its kind that is recognized by the state, not because marriage is a right, but because it has the potential for children. It would be nice to think that the state cares so much about ensuring that one's chosen companion stays with them for the rest of their lives but really, the state doesn't give a rat's behind about fidelity. If it did, adultery would be against the law.
The wording of the marriage contract is of course tailored to the hallucinatory needs of the society and makes it sound as if marriage (in the legal sense) were a promise by one party to love the other with all of their heart, mind and soul until ... well, death do them part. Of course it's not; it's just beautiful wrapping paper for a very difficult-to-manage-and-sustain gift: children. The state assumes that since you will be bringing up children, then you ought to have certain obligations to them and certain benefits, like tax breaks.
If gay unions are granted the status of marriage, this will be tantamount to having insurance companies give benefits to anyone who walks up to their information desks. If marriage (again in the legal sense) is for companionship, then why does one get rewarded for it?
If marriage were a right, then why don't minors have their unions recognized? What makes the special age of 16 (or 18 in other places) so magically appropriate for marriage? Also, why do we have degrees of consanguinity in marriage?
The answer: because marriage is procreation-based and we really, really don't want bad genes concentrated in one individual. You know, everyone has their little wicked genes that didn't get the privilege of expression because one of their parents had a better pair that overshadowed the little evil devils. Everyone who's had an encounter with Mendelian genetics knows there is a higher probability of the little evil things finding expression if both parents have them.
So, the bottom line: homosexual unions cannot logically qualify as marriages if we don't want to risk making married-with-children a very unattractive option. All you need to do is allow one gay couple to get married and you have all sorts of problems. Buddies may claim they want to be married, but actually they only want tax breaks. Of course they will conveniently choose not to adopt kids and there will be no one to make sure they live together. Then we have society breaking down in one big way.
If homosexual persons want to stay together, that's all very fine, but for heaven's sake the state doesn't need to enforce their private promises to each other. I'd be concerned if the state had to make sure that I give the beautiful gift I promised my best friend for his birthday. Wouldn't you?
