Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

"So does America participate in a democratic decision-making process, or not?..."Nobody decides what issues are of public interest, neither the majority, nor the politicians, just like nobody decides whether the Earth is flat or round. Public interest it simply the results of observation, which is an act of viewing or noting a fact, an occurrence or effect. Now, what occurrence or effect is associated with, for example, environmental pollution? The answer is: harm to humans and other living organisms. We didn't decide in a democratic decision-making process that environmental pollution causes harmful effects. Instead, we have obtained that knowledge through the study or observation of the natural world. Since public interest is the welfare or well-being of the general public and we know that environmental protection is able to produce effects that are beneficial to the well-being of the general public , it logically(not politically) follows that environmental protection policies are of public interest. The same is true for social stability, internal and external safety, treatment and prevention of disease and illness, reproduction of society and so on. They all produce effects that are beneficial to the well-being of the general public. That is why welfare state, police, army, hospitals and paramedic, heterosexual unions..., are issues of public interest. They are recognized(not determined) by public authority(government) in the form of policies or public services and are funded with public or taxpayers' money. Various types of unions in which people live together, such as: homosexual, polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters... are unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public. That is why this types of private arrangements are not of public interest and politicians don'thave any objectively justified reason neither for special public and legal recognition of this arrangements nor for the transfer of public money to them in the form of benefits. "I don't get your third point. You state that heterosexual unions are in the public interest, while homosexual unions are not. I would agree with you that homosexual unions do not always produce children (though they can, through surrogates)."Children born through surrogacy are always the product of heterosexual unions, with built-in identity of one man and one woman. Homosexual unions has nothing to do with it.Homosexual union can only deprive child of a full development potential and it is not in the best interest of a child. That is easy to prove with the following argument: Premise 1: Through interactions with parents child develop social and cognitive skills, mature emotionally, and gain the self-confidence required to engage in social environment.Premise 2: Men and women have different characteristics. Modern science and conventional wisdom shows that men and women differ in many aspects. Women communicate better than men, they focus on how to create a solution that works for the entire group, talking through issues, and utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion and empathy. Men on the other hand, tend to be more task oriented, less talkative and more isolated. Men have a hard time understanding emotions that are not spoken, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. Experts have proven that men process better in the left hemisphere while women tend to process equally well between the two hemispheres. This difference clearly shows why men are stronger with left-brain activities and approach problem solving from a task-oriented perspective while women typically solve problems more creatively and are more aware of feelings while communicating.Premise 3: The more different interactions a child have during development the more richer it will become in emotional, social and cognitive skills required to engage in environment which consist of both men and women, just like child living in a multilingual society that is exposed to two differnt languages during development, will communicate better than those exposed to one.Premise 4: In a parent-child interactions, child of a lesbian couple is deprived of characteristics typical of a men and child of a gay couple is deprived of characteristics typical of a women. Hence, a child with homosexual parents will have less differnt developmental interactions and therefore less emotional, social and cognitive skills required to engage in environment which consist of both men and women, just like child living in a multilingual society that is exposed to only one language during development, will do worse in communication than those exposed to two languages. Conclusion: Homosexual union deprives child of a full development potential and therefore it is not in the best interest of a child.Since each individual human being has a built-in identity of one man and one woman and since homosexual union deprives child of a full development potential, by your line of reasoning, public intrest is to create a family conditions where child is disconected from its built-in dual identity and deprived of a full development potential."The reason for my spread-the-race jibe, on the other hand, was that marriage is not always to produce children."Marriage is defined as a legally recognized union or relationship between two people that establishes rights and obligations between them. Ergo, "marriage", ipso facto, can never produce children. You were supposed to say "interpersonal intimate relationship is not always to produce children". And that would be a non sequitur because government isn't concerned with people's private choices and romantic relationships but with the fact that children are always the product of heterosexual unions. That is why this type of union is of public intrest and is legally recognized by government. "It also makes people happy, and I doubt even you would say that gay people don't deserve to be happy. And being surrounded by happy people makes everybody happier. And happy people are good workers."Publicly funded policies and services are concerned with the issues that have positive effects on the general public. If you, or some LGBT interest group, are concerned with the positive effects on gay people and their happiness you are free to establish a private fund that will pay benefits to gay people who decided to live together in a romantic relationship. Also, some LGBT organization is free to create and issue a document that would mimic a marriage license, authorizing a gay partners to "marry" and establishing rights and obligations between them. But, the relationship and happiness of gay partners is not an issue of general public concern as this relationship is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public. Since homosexual union is legally recognized and benefited with public money, although it is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public, this political recognition represents the pursuit of private interests with public money. Additionally, it represents the pursuit of private ideology of political elites with public money. Since the pursuit of private interests with public money is called corruption, gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption."You keep referencing the "public interest." What public is this, and why are they interested in banning love and letting roommates and nuns adopt children together?"That is not true. If government doesn't publicly recognize homosexual union that doesn't mean government is banning love or romantic relationship between gay partners. They are free to live together in a romantic or sexually intimate relationship, to organize a wedding ceremony, exchange vows in front of family and friends, make promises of eternal love... They can do whatever they like to pursue their happines, regardless of public proclamation of their relationship by an authority figure.