I agree. But now we need to list specific ways in which the changed contract has injured what centuries has rightly called marriage and is now being redefined.
I believe unnatural marriage makes the culture more dangerous for everything from disease to distorted understandings of gender.
My “cultural danger idea” speaks of injury to the culture, for sure, but it only tangentially grapples with injury to “the institution of marriage.”
Matrimony is defined by the root word for “mother” as being the haven in which protected mothering can take place.
Gay marriage broadens that special preserve in the same way that permitting cattle to forage on a game preserve injures those wild animals that were being fostered. It doesn’t matter that those cattle like pasturage, also. It matters that the wild creatures no longer have a special, caring eye tuned to their unique needs.
I’m just tossing out thoughts here.
See #65.
I agree with everything on your list. The ones that specifically seems to address “how does gay marriage injure natural marriage” is the one about children doing better with their natural parents. Next would be greater tendencies toward deviant, dangerous behavior from those raised in unnatural marriages. Homosexual outrageous promiscuity, even within unnatural marriage, is a danger as well, since it suggests that is a normal point of acceptance.
I don’t think we “need” to list that necessarily…altho I agree with you on all the cultural things. I don’t think the crowd we can/need to/must convince will care about that or believe it anyway.
They will, however, find resonance with the post facto contract thing however.