I don’t think you’re overlooking a down side from a legal standpoint. Now, if you believe homosexuality is a sin and that it’s the government’s duty to discourage all sin, then you’d think differently. I think we are on the page on all that, though, so I’ll move on.
The thing that’s interesting to me is that your position is very close to so many others, but it turns into a big hullaballoo just because you’re okay with using the word marriage and others aren’t.
We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two.
I think this argument is a little weak – unless you’re willing to give up (or at least severely water down) all of the “freedom” and “right” stuff.
I don’t think you’re overlooking a down side from a legal standpoint. Now, if you believe homosexuality is a sin and that it’s the government’s duty to discourage all sin, then you’d think differently. I think we are on the page on all that, though, so I’ll move on.
The thing that’s interesting to me is that your position is very close to so many others, but it turns into a big hullaballoo just because you’re okay with using the word marriage and others aren’t.
We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two.
I think this argument is a little weak – unless you’re willing to give up (or at least severely water down) all of the “freedom” and “right” stuff.