If the presumption is that marriage precludes extramarital sexual activity, then it seems reasonable to argue that opening it up to same-sex couples does in fact 'disrespect the idea of marriage'.From New York magazine, right on cue, comes an article written by a gelded homo sapien who happens to have a Y-chromosome. The opening paragraph:
Perhaps it's time for that aspect of the definition of marriage to change as well. Expect it to be the next big Establishment objective after the shock troops are done mopping up any residual resistance to transgendering.
As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.Outbred serial monogamy is a monumental achievement, one a civilization that has managed to make it the societal norm should be perpetually vigilant in maintaining. It goes against the natural inclination of women to a small degree and of men to a much more significant one, but the benefits in terms of social cohesion and, most crucially, widespread male societal buy-in is enormous. Things are easier to tear down than they are to put together.
Celibacy, monogamy, homosexuality, polygamy, incest, bestiality--they're simply different choices. No one approach is preferable to any other. Your job as a good, tolerant SWPL is to nod and smile and condone people for being true to themselves. That's all that matters. Concern for "societal consequences" is just thin euphemistic cover for a license to spread hate! hate! hate!!