Absolutely. Same-sex 'marriage' is an intellectually dishonest thing to even say - has nothing to do with so-called 'hatred' or 'bigotry' - two men can't be husband and wife, nor two women. That is a fact - and marriage, by very definition, is the union of husband and wife. That is reality - that is language. In addition, a child needs a mother and a father. It is beyond dispute that children learn and have unique relationships with each parent, and a mother cannot fill the roll of a father and vice versa. It is also reality that two men cannot supply a child with a mother and a father, nor two women. That is not bigotry nor hatred to say - it is simply reality.
The problem with the polarization of this issue is that it went straight from illegality right into the province of marriage, with no stop at some more sensible way-station like civil unions, or simple legal arrangements giving gay couples the same legal frameworks that straight couples enjoy. No, there are too many groups that want to become political players, too much legal/political posturing where the overriding objective is to promote the unpopular institution of gay marriage in order to add it to their basket, make it just one more piece of the “social progressive’ agenda.
Yes indeed - which indicates even further that marriage does not mean the same thing to these activists as to others - placing so much emphasis on the relationship with the state. Witness those who object to state statutes that say "civil union" but other than that allowed for identical benefits to marriage under the code - the base of their relationship is to have a certificate on file with the state government saying "marriage"? I don't know of anyone who gets married who are looking mainly forward to the legal document vs. their personal relationship.
Yes, and you bring up an interesting point that I’d never considered before (has ANYONE?), and that is that ANY contract is what you make of it, and ANY two people, M/M,
F/F, or whatever, can agree to enter into a contract of their own crafting , spelling out whatever their needs, expectations and fiduciary requirements are between themselves. What is to prevent this? It may look like a mere
business relationship, but that is indeed what bad marriages devolve into, anyway, between the traditionally “married”.
Is that so far afield?
Yes, and you bring up an interesting point that I’d never considered before (has ANYONE?), and that is that ANY contract is what you make of it, and ANY two people, M/M,
F/F, or whatever, can agree to enter into a contract of their own crafting , spelling out whatever their needs, expectations and fiduciary requirements are between themselves. What is to prevent this? It may look like a mere
business relationship, but that is indeed what bad marriages devolve into, anyway, between the traditionally “married”.
Is that so far afield?