“The definition of marriage as one man and one woman has been intact for millennia, and for good reason, as the author of the posted article points out.”
I have a question for the group. If they called it a civil union instead and had their “wedding” at City Hall and they didn’t violate the sanctity of the religious bond between a man and a woman, would that work?
Seems to me the issue is the word “Marriage.” I get that once again the left is playing with semantics to raise awareness to their voting block without regard to those of us offended by this.
However in saying that, if they called it civil union, partners forever or whatever, and did not use the word “Marriage”, if they kept the Church out of it, why should we care? If they are not practicing religion and doesn’t demand that the Church marry them then why does it matter to us?
If you are Godless, frankly I don’t care. That’s their issue not mine.
Well, if you call it "marriage," it offends more than religious values.
There are societal implications to marriage, particularly regarding the raising of children, as the posted article points out.
There are also numerous legal implications of marriage. It changes the status in quite a number of areas with respect to an individual's relation to government and employers. Take taxes and benefits. In general, it seems as if the "married" pair will be paying less taxes and getting more benefits than if they remained single as homosexuals usually would. Increased government expenses and decreased government tax receipts sounds all too familiar, and figure to be exacerbated. It all adds up to red ink.