Mr. Solway, thank you for detailing a reasoned approach for the institution of marriage. The left says that being gay is not a lifestyle. I believe their are both … people born gay and many others for whom it is a “lifestyle” choice. But beyond that in general they are a bunch of whiney, self centered people who want to be recognized! A generation of people who in normal times would have been left unselected when teams were being picked. Now they have a vocal ability and a sympathetic audience to bring their gripes to. It’s popular don’t you know.
It is part of an overall leftist attempt to destroy (molest) any institution that has given many benefits to this country. Sure divorce is rampant but I don’t believe that just because it was not easy to obtain in decades past that the same effects did not affect past generations of children born in wedlock.
It does take a lot of sacrifice and investment by mother and father to raise children. Those who think that two mothers or two fathers is an adequate substitute are only fooling themselves. Or maybe they want to fool us. The truth is that without procreation, gays as a segment of society will remain a small and insignificant voice. But, ah ha, being able to adopt and inculcate the gay lifestyle in numerous children without the need to procreate allows gays to propogate their lifestyle.
But basically your article puts some meat to the arguments for the institution of marriage and that the institution is not a remnant of eras long gone and is no longer relevant, but that there are valid, logical reasons for the institution even if one wants to discount the religious aspects.
I say live and let live. But again as with any issue, your privacy ends where my nose begins. And I prefer that gays keep their lifestyle out of my nose/face. I don’t really care what two people want to do in their own privacy but when you bring it into the public square, then I will give a strong and clear reaction! “Get out of my face with your business!”
