But gay and straight relationships are not equivalent and their place in society is not equivalent. Its the same reason I don't support the legal recognition of marrying things like cartoon characters or pets.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying a man marrying a man is the same as marrying a 1998 Chevy Monte Carlo. There is a scale and gay couples at least meet the companionship and economic cooperation aspects of marriage. But they are not a reproductive unit and so can only immitate.
Controversially I would say incest ticks more of the boxes for valid marriage, however most of us would not agree with giving such couples full legal recognition. Once again I am not saying they are the same, and I'm trying not to moralise at all. My point is we have a rough idea of what we believe a marriage is not, it raises the question of what we think marriage is, particularly as it pertains more formally to family law, tax incentives, rights and responsibilities. It is my conviction that in addition to commitments of lifelong companionship and economic cooperation, it represents the basic reproductive unit of society, and should be legislated as such, to the exclusion of same sex couples.
Be the first to reply to this agreement.