It is Opinionated Blowhard who has the better of this argument. The point is that “homosexual marriage” is the mop-up activity of the destruction of marriage that was accomplished primarily through no-fault divorce, the acceptance of contraception, and therefore of separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and therefore vitiating one of the foundations of marriage, and in a cyclical way, the imposition of legal abortion on demand.
Put another way, “homosexual marriage” is more symptom than cause. Opposing the deep, structural changes that are evidenced by “homosexual marriage” by opposing “homosexual marriage,” itself, is feckless. The foundations for those deep, structural changes were established when we got rid of “till death do us part,” and “they stayed together for the sake of the children,” and “if you knocked her up, you’re going to marry her,” and “I’m not that kind of girl, after all, I have a reputation [and a desire not to have children till married] to protect.”
It was all these things that have led people to generally think that marriage is about recognition of the romantic attachments of persons rather than about a permanent relationship and bond dually meant to provide companionship and consolation to a man and woman together and to provide a stable environment for the rearing of any children that might proceed therefrom.
“Homosexual marriage” is just the pimple on the butt of the heretofore strictly heterosexual destruction of marriage.
THAT'S the point.
sitetest
Thank you for your reply. With due respect, you still miss the point. Blowhards argument is NOT PERTINENT to this thread, which was my only point. It seems to me that perhaps you didn’t read the original article, and somehow missed my repeated - repeated - repeated claims that everything Blowhard said was actually correct. Please go back and re read at least the headline.....and then try and tell me that this event is not significant....in and of itself.