[rob777]

"Those who find homosexuality offensive to their sensibilities cannot prohibit gay relationships altogether."


The question is not one of prohibiting gay relationships all together. This is a complete red herring. The question is whether the public is going to sanction such relationships as a marriage. There is a historic reason why the public has taken an interest in traditional marriage. The support is meant to encourage stability in a relationship which has the potential to create vulnerable third parties (children). The protection of children is the only justifiable reason for the public to take an interest in private relations. Since same sex relations can not produce children, they are purely a matter of private concern and not of interest to the public.

The gay rights activists used to argue that their relationships were strictly a matter of private concern when they were arguing against sodomy laws. Now they want to reverse course and argue that their relations should be of public concern, which as the premise behind sodomy laws.

[mojito]

You are spot-on: this is a red herring.

The left wants to destroy the institution of the family by legally defining it away so that any “relationship” can be considered a “family.”

[lmr]

Great comments.

[Cvengr]

"Those who find homosexuality offensive to their sensibilities cannot prohibit gay relationships altogether."

By analogy, those who find murder offensive to their sensibilities cannot prohibit murderous relationships altogether,......but then again,..maybe, just maybe they can be made illegitimate such that those who disobey they law face the consequences of their behavior.

In the case of homosexual relationships, the homosexual owes the heterosexual spouse substantial recompense for the destruction of marriage as well as familial members for destruction of their families.

IMHO, every homosexual has committed an infraction upon the familial rights of all older generations and younger generations twice removed.