The fact is, large numbers of homosexuals, male and female, all over the world, ALSO, do not buy into same-sex marriage
either. It’s an issue primarily because it’s MADE an issue by
politicians, who enjoy marshalling their constituencies to come out on their side of the issue.
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.
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.