First, joining a man with a man is not a marriage. Marriage is two ‘unlike’ things: for example, a man and a woman.
Second, marriage is about protecting women and children. It isn’t about who has warm fuzzies for who.
Third, monogamous marriage is the structure on which our culture is built. Without the bonds of responsibility for family holding together the nuclear family, we will have the law of the prey and preyed upon instead. It will be the worst setback, especially for women, since the demise of the pagan culture of ancient Rome. They will become sperm dumps, afterthoughts, single female impoverished and preyed upon.
Most importantly, marriage is about God and His natural law. Men fit naturally with women. The penis fits a vagina. The sperm fits an egg. The child fits the family. And the male/female influence in the family balances the child.
Thank you, xzins.
Wait... You're saying that the extinction of paganism in ancient Rome was a bad thing? That the replacement of paganism with Christianity was a setback for women?
Regards,
Juvenval, in his Satire II, expresses his outrage against, “... a man of high birth and wealth being handed over in marriage to a man. “ and goes on to add, “Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly : people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day.” ( Ramsay trans. in Loeb edition )
I’ve often thought that it might make a point if one were to press for this volume of the Loeb Classical Library to be banned as hate speech.