I’m referring to a comment that David made earlier – he didn’t specify heterosexual couples there, he made a general statement about how broadening the definition of marriage weakens it.

This pernicious lie is used to demonize gays and claim that since we’re so wealthy we can overcome any emotional distress foisted upon us and use our vast piles of money to comfort us after being forced from the hospital room where our dying partner passed away, far away from our comforting presence. It’s also used to claim that we can control the political landscape at our whim, and since we haven’t done that yet, we must not *really* be interested in equality.

Thank you! I’m really tired of hearing this as well. I usually bring up people of Jewish descent when people try and use this idea to deny gay people equal rights.

David,

Broadening the definition of legitimate heterosexual coupling to include casual encounters and living together outside marital bounds did weaken, ultimately the definition of marriage.

Your logic states that broadening the definition of marriage to include interracial couples weakens marriage – is there some reason you are avoiding dealing with this?

And please provide some scientific evidence for your statement above.

People, mostly conservatives, idealize marriage prior to the 60s, but there is no real evidence that marriage prior to the “free love” era was actually the idealized thing people thought it was

That article I posted cannot be just retreat theories of the 60’s and 70’s because it involves rights put in place well after those decades, but nice try 😉