Let me address just one point though.
A beneficial union is one that is good for society. Children are the future of any society; no children, no society. Only a traditional marriage of one man married to one women has been shown to be the best environment for producing healthy happy children. No SAD 'marriage' has even the potential to produce children. Therefore these SAD unions deserve no special recognition.
Of course you will return and say "what about normal couples that can't have children?", so I'll answer that here too.
The inability to produce children is normally only known after the marriage. Therefore we have to recognize any marriage with the potential to produce offspring. Once again no SAD union can produice offspring.
May God bless you and open your eyes to see.
God Save America (Please)
As usual you substitute personal desire for truth.
A beneficial union is one that is good for society.
And who gets to decide which unions are beneficial? You again? If promoting gay unions reduces the number of homosexuals involved in hedonistic and dangerous lifestyles I’m all for them. The whole point of having society is to increase the happiness of it’s members. A society that denies people the ability to peruse happiness sows the seeds of its downfall. That’s why coercing homosexuals through fraud or force is a bad idea, which was in fact, my original point on this thread.
Children are the future of any society; no children, no society.
At least 90% of people are happily heterosexual. Society isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. In my opinion, increasing the aggregate satisfaction of the population is worth a small reduction in birth rate. It’s not like we are an agrarian monarchy where the population is expected to provide soldiers for the King’s army.
Therefore these SAD unions deserve no special recognition.
That’s your opinion. I disagree, but that is a topic for another thread.
May God bless you and open your eyes to see.
Thanks. But remember this: we may not agree, but we do have to live in the same nation. Isn’t reasonable compromise preferable to throwing away everything our ancestors built?