What I do care about is expansion of minority status because that effects all of us...."
Removing the sexual restrictions of the marriage licensing system, removes any
"minority status" that is presently imposed and will continue to be imposed if
calling the union of two individuals takes any other form than the wording: Marriage.
The term "marriage" should not mean anything other than the life-long bonding
of two people. If that alone isn't moral enough for you... well.. Perhaps just
being happy with a man and woman marriage will suffice. Regardless of their
character, sexual impulses, moral fortitude, honesty, etc.
Just as long as it's a guy and a girl, right? </sarcasm>
The term "marriage" should not mean anything other than the life-long bonding of two people. If that alone isn't moral enough for you... well.. Perhaps just being happy with a man and woman marriage will suffice. Regardless of their character, sexual impulses, moral fortitude, honesty, etc.
Just as long as it's a guy and a girl, right?
Definitions are important. Changing them to suit a narrow interest, while conveniant, then renders the definition meaningless.
The term "marriage" should not mean anything other than the life-long bonding of two people.
But it does not.
I have pointed out that there are alternatives available to same sex partners to take care of their legal concerns.
I have pointed out that claiming status based on behavior should be verified.
My opinion is that the ultimate goal is to have homosexuals, a group based on behavior, classified as a minority with federal protection.
My posts do not rely on changing definitions
And right now the definition is that marriage is between people of the opposite sex.
And homosexuals are not a protected minority