You ask a simplistic, agenda-laden question. So I'll ask of you, "In order to gain societal recognition for your sexual proclivities, is it proper to destroy one of the most vital institutions of civilization? Why is your chosen sexual expression (which has been defined as degenerated from normal up until recent memory) representing less than 2% of the populace to be afforded greater value than the other 98% such that the instituions of civilization will be destroyed and rebuilt to accommodate your ilk?"
I'll second his question, and up it one.
Why should someone who, likely to due to being molested as a child or adolescent, or seduced by an older homosexual, or poor parenting or a broken home, is currently indulging in same sex sodomy, have the entire moral fabric of society rent asunder in order to play pretend at marriage?
When the majority of homosexuals have no interest in "marriage", are not currenty or planning to be monogamous, and may not even remain "homosexuals" for the rest of their lives?
These questions are not rhetorical, BTW.
The question I posed was important to me. I was born with an intersexed condition and as a result, cannot have children at all. No surgeries or prayers can fix that. We deal with what life hands us. I was literally handed a mixed bag but that should be no reason to exclude me from marrying a nice girl sometime in the future.
My concern is that there will be some narrow definition handed down or perhaps something so vague that we will fight in the courts about it for years to come. All because legilators don't care to reseach issues completely before bowing to the masses and attempting that re-election.
Just because someone doesn't completely agree with you does not mean they fall within a certain part of society. I expect an attempt at character assassination from a liberal, not from someone on this board.
Resrouces for medical intersex conditions: Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Intersex Society of North America.