You ignore the fact that the majority of people support the idea of Gay Marriage. It is just a dwindling minority of folk who have a problem with it.
The arguments against it become more and more convoluted and more and more ridiculous.
People seem to think that reinventing definitions is a good cover for prejudice and discrimination.
When I got married I had a choice between a civil ceremony or marriage. So did you, so did all the naysayers on here.
But you want to deny that right to Gay folk. Thus creating a second class of citizenship.
That is not just.
I don't ignore anything. On the contrary, I talk with people and so far their answer is "NO" and "is not my business" but no one have told me "yes", that is OK such gay marriage. Take note that my question was directed to straight couples and single persons.
To me, the phrase "not my business" doesn't mean "yes".
What you say "majority of people support the idea of gay marriage", such is just an opinion of yours, such is not a fact.
Usually polls about gay marriage are "paid" by someone, and this someone has an agenda, and will look for fulfilling what is the intent of the poll by manipulating the way of asking the question, and more.
The whole charade about gay marriage is well written and organized. Allow me to give you an example: "Modern Family".
On this TV series, the gay couple is not only married but have adopted a child. Here is when the producers were so careful selecting the child. A white boy should cause from the audience to demand closing the show after the very first chapter. A black boy should cause scandal and court cases. A white girl and black girl should be offensive for millions of American families.
Then, the only alternative choice was a "Chinese girl".
I think that laws are made essentially to protect the individual not so to punish him.
Laws must go in accord not only with human behavior but also in accord with human nature. Our laws must avoid the most they can the isolation from the laws of nature.
See? Nature formed species with certain model which will fit for the best survival of that species. The roach can obtain both sexes when is needed, but such is with a roach. We are humans, and in our species, the two sexes were formed to couple between themselves and keep procreation and survival.
Marriage is just a ceremony, but it was invented to make official the union of a man with a woman towards procreation and be part of society as family, no more as individuals alone.
Such intention can't be fulfilled by homosexuals and lesbians. Even in the Constitution their presence is not mentioned. And is not by cause of ignorance or rejection, but because laws and rules in those times were guided to be the close they can to our nature.
This is what it must be respected by any law in society: respect our nature.
This is to say, yes, the individual is free to choose what to do with his body, no one will argue about it. The problem is when the government make regulations protecting and inciting such a sexual behavior which is against nature.
As I pointed before, it is not the gay person, it is not The People, but corrupt authorities who becoming even "dictators" (like the Governor of California mentioned before) are destroying decency, moral and integrity -which are the foundation of laws- and these authorities are the fault of the current chaos in societies of the world. (Check what president Trump made as a great achievement, saying "transgenders" won't be allowed in the US army. Surely this is how the rest of authorities must fulfill or attempt to fulfill their duties looking toward the best for the American society)
From my part, I do not reject the sexual preference of each individual, but gay marriage is simply unacceptable. It should never come to be "official". That step has been a big mistake.
My humble opinion.
