And there's no need for the government to be involved in it at all. In fact, it would be irrational for the government to BE involved: there's no public interest. And there truly isn't, if it's a private relation: an adult social unit in which adults are negotiating or contracting for their own self-interest.
But if the definition of marriage is "the union of a man and a woman with each other, and any children who come from their union, then sure, gay couples can marry: if the couple consists of a gay man and a lesbian! Because this is the only kind of "gay couple" which could actually have children come from their union.
The fatal fact is that a good many heterosexuals have already "changed the definition of marriage," essentially excluding children from their idea of what it IS. In other words, they have already radically shrunk marriage to an arrangement that centers on adult desires.
In that case, gays aren't really breaking up marriage. That's already largely accomplished. Nonmarital cohabitation did that. Contraception did that. Easy divorce did that. Fifty million abortions did that. Gays are just looking at the shapeless, broken heap of disjointed pieces of the-thing-that-used-to-be-called-marriage, and saying, "Oh, look, there's a piece I like. You're mean if you don't let me have it."
>> And there’s no need for the government to be involved in it at all.
Agreed. But its involvement exceeds necessity, and is in reality insidious — it inevitably persecutes those that do not conform, support, nor service the beneficiaries.
I refuse to call them gay, gay means happy, they are homosexuals and I refuse to play their name games and put a happy word on their sick anal feces sex.
If our side had some guts then the left would not have destroyed families as much but alas the cowards on our side who refuse to speak up to neighbors, friends, family, on TV etc are just as much to blame
It seems to me the institution and society can benefit with the state’s involvement, or they can be harmed.
Either way, how does one keep many from being conditioned that the state defines marriage in the first place? To the state, marriage is whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks it is. If it recognizes the instititution, it needs a definition, and how else does it come up with one, at least in the modern era? I mean I think that’s why so many have accepted ‘gay marriage’, it was possible for the state to approve it, so it must be possible.
On the good side, you make a good point about the children, in my opinion. The other side would say ‘but old folks get marrried and there is adoption and surrogates or whatever.’ Which I think isn’t a very good argument considering that if the state did what it was supposed to do many would benefit, the fringe cases don’t impede that. In a perfect world.
On the bad side, if the state is involved, how do you stop from being punished when you disagree with whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time? They need a way to punish those who will never buy into it, and the state is that stick. That’s why supporting ‘gay marriage’ is so stupid for the big party libertarians: statists and homosexualists punishing those who will never agree with them as concerns marriage with the power of the state is what the ‘gay marriage’ debate is all about, something they say they are against generally.
Freegards
Too sadly true.
Looks like the world of truth is fast being taken down by the "believers". They fell for the old safety-in-numbers deception.
When dictators have those 99% approval ratings, do they necessarily lie or do they simply eliminate those who are dragging down the stats?
Either way, it still leaves those annoying 1%-ers to deal with...