Dude, I appreciate this post. And I get it. Honestly, I really do. I disagree with it, but I get it.
There are two issues, in specific, with which I disagree, and where I believe your argument fails.
Firstly, you say:
I understand where you’re coming from, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is true. I literally cannot grok how expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will make straight people less likely to marry.
Look, I get that you see “traditional” marriage as a fundamental and essential building block of society. I understand that you are concerned about its continued decline. Fewer people are getting married, especially young people. But that’s been happening for a long time, and began well before the very concept of gay marriage entered the public consciousness. There are a lot of reasons for it, but so far, gay marriage has not been among them.
And your fears that legalizing SSM will contribute to this decline, while understandable, are based purely on emotion, with no evidence, or even a viable hypothetical mechanism, to support them.
Secondly, you say:
The “traditional” marriage arrangement is not recognized to be the ideal child-raising situation. Not by the evidence, at least. You believe it is, and you want it to be, but the facts on the ground do not back it up.
But leaving that aside, it’s your latter point that I challenge. I absolutely agree that marriage embodies a commitment to one another, to family, and to society. I agree also that it symbolizes a continuance of family and relationships and societal bond.
I fail to see how SSM changes that symbolism.
Any couple who chooses to become married, in the eyes of God or the State, is *embracing *that symbolism, that continuance. They believe that it is important, for themselves and their family and their society and their posterity. They are perpetuating the symbolism you support, and are doing so when fewer and fewer people choose to. Your argument that societal acceptance of “nontraditional” marriages somehow damages that symbolism is not one based in evidence, but your gut feeling.
Again, I understand the idea that “lifetime marriage between mommy and daddy is the ideal way to raise kids” and should therefore be what we, as a society, encourage. I disagree with it strongly, but I understand it.
But you want to take it one step further, and say that it should be the model we encourage to the exclusion of all others. And your arguments why we should do so are based entirely in emotion, and not fact. You recognize this, and I appreciate that you do. IMO there’s nothing wrong with arguing from opinion, even when it’s contradicted by fact, provided you acknowledge that it is opinion. But I hope that you will come to change your opinion in time.
.