Quote Originally Posted by Torog
Despite the dismal divorce rate that you allude to,what I'm holding onto,is marriage between a man and a woman,for the purpose of repleneshing the population and mental stabilty and clarity,we reproduce heterosexually and our natural instinct,is to do so..when you send the message to our children,that it no longer matters that they fulfill their natural roles,in-stabilty and confusion are the result.
I understand though I don't agree with this view. And here's why, it seems that there's a generational gap between us. I think many younger people who were raised in the 80's and 90's may be more inclined to see this "traditional" notion of marriage as failed. We're the children of the generation that just couldn't seem to get marriage to work for the most part, and so a new definition seems neccessary.
Telling homosexuals that they can't be married, but asking them to settle for a "civil union" is like telling them they can't really be in "love", that what they're experiencing is simply "homosexual love". As if there was some other form of love between two people.

I don't think the people are important in a marriage, but rather the relationship they share.

I think if we teach our children that there is no limit on human potential, that we are free to move beyond our "historical" roles, then progress will result.