|
this topic has been brought up repeatedly. It's easy to assume that any argument against gay marriage is summed up with "I'm no homophobe but.....fill in the blank with tradition, diction, or some undefinabe threat to society lurking ominously just beyond the horizon." To turn the tables a bit, and putting that philosophy on the defensive side of things, when one is arguing for gay marriage start with the question:
Is there any societal benefit to a traditional, nuclear family. If not, why? If not, what is the benefit of opening up the interpretation of marriage, but keeping the institution itself. In essence, it seems like that argument wants to keep the institution (perhaps to passify those who are for the "traditional" version), but open up the institution to however one wants to interpret it.
I guess, what's the point? it seems to me, to be honest with yourselves, you'd approach the arugment with...."marriage as an instituion is outdated", and then explain your position. It looks like that's what your doing, without the conviction.
|