The logic fallacy of composition states that if it is (or isn’t) true for the one example, then it is (or isn’t) true for every example. So, your example of YOUR marriage is entirely irrelevant.
The INSTITUTION of marriage must be maintained, as I stated in my previous post, in order to maintain our society as a whole. Its definition must not be changed, nor watered down, and must not become meaningless.
The societal advantages are numerous, as many studies have indicated. Less crime, less poverty, better education - all are correlated with married couples raising children in that context.
No one is dismantling the institution. It is being expanded to let others get married.
I don't get it. Wouldn't gay marriage lead to more monogomous relationship amongst homos? Isn't that a good thing?
I don't buy that gays are destroying marriage by wanting to be married. I see it as them coming around to recognizing a good thing and wanting to have it for themselves.
I hope you didn't think I acepted this bit of illogic because I didn't parse every word. You do rely on logic don't you?
Based on the benefits of a heterosexual, two-parent marriage, how can you allow divorce and it's evil impact on children?
What should we do about all those single parents?
If gays marry wouldn't some of those benefits occur or would their children be little homo scouts running around bringing friends home so their parents can have sex with them?