tolerance is fine, its what we have now.
but acceptance through a re-definition of marriage, will quickly lead to advocacy. and with that, you will see an even further decline in the already imploding rates of marriage and in-wedlock birth rates.
Rather than belittling marriage for the sake of political funding from the fetish groups, why not put all our efforts into strengthening traditional marriage?
The argument is marriage is a flop anyway, but that's due to liberalism.
If we all work toward strengthening heterosexual marriage, then our nation will prosper immensely, and the children will grow up to be strong and mentally stable.
Why add to the moral decline and the spread of deadly diseases? It seems as though people would be begging to save marriage from the weirdos in our society.
Well, for one thing, marriage has been redefined throughout history. It used to be a simple property contract where a man or his family traded property to a woman's family, for permission to marry her. It's evolved to an institution where people of different heritages can marry, childless couples can marry (without social pressure to have kids), and the marital status can be flipped on or off, like a switch, through no-fault divorce. All of this was accomplished without gay rights advocates.
Do you really think that the lack of an FMA constitutes "permission" for people to be homosexual? I remember the days when nobody talked about homosexuality (except to describe it as sin in a religious text), and gays were given near zero tolerance. If that wasn't "lack of permission" what would be? Yet, there were closeted gay people. They've always been in every society, they just get more mention in some than in others.
If you really want to fix heterosexual marriage, and in-wedlock birth rates, why is targeting homosexuals part of the solution?