For that statement to be true at all, one has to accept the redefinition of marriage as changing away from an institution designed to create a social and economic union by which a stable environment is created for conception and raising of children by the same two people who conceived. That’s not something invented by me or even religious people. That has been the definition and purpose for thousands of years.
I do not in any way accept redefining marriage into simply a license to f#@k.
No, his relationship is not honorable. It mocks both the purpose and the institution.
While it is true that human civ has been based on monogamous heterosexuality for thousands of years, and the kindness our religions and cultures have ingrained in us lately has helped minority groups achieve equal status in societies now, the toothpaste is out of the tube.
People who are different are now considered equal in value to anyone else, and homosexuality is now an accepted sexual orientation.
We can take human history for what it was, and accept changes that have happened whether we like them or not. I really don’t see the tube of toothpaste stuffing the escaped gel back in, no matter how much you might wish it would.
Freedoms for masses of humans, as the constitution attempted quite well to achieve, mean all freedoms, not just the ones you like.