If you had a reason accompanying your opinion, we'd have something to talk about.
I (might have) posted it a couple of pages ago. I'll see if I can link it for you.
But generally speaking: It is in the very definition of marriage that is defined as specifically as a man and woman, that I think highlights and celebrates both the equality and the difference between man and woman in a single union, monogamous, for life and with some thought for raising a family etc.
But considering you would probably reject this understanding, I can see why you would not support such a view except that which SSM is legalised.
I will make a note that most of these things which make up marriage, such as being for life, though for raising a family; and possibly also the first bit (with SSM), devoids marriage further of its meaning, significance and purpose (of course this is debatable). Marriage was never just because two people love each other, and it traditionally never has been on such basis...
Of course you could argue that civil marriage doesn't have any meaning anyway... but...
I understand the line of argument, that says it is discriminatory. I don't see why this definition of marriage, could be labelled as sexist or racist or any of those labels (maybe homophobic, but that is a recent label that I personally think when used often presumptuously)
So the government hasn't done all it can! Discrimination still exists.
So called discrimination? You need to first accept that your objection to marriage equality is still discrimination based on the ground of sexual preference. Then you can move onto discussing why this type of discrimination should, in your opinion, exist. Pretending won't make the issue go away. Although that's the problem, isn't it? Because once you accept that you are being discriminatory, then you're the sort of person that the society despises.
Discrimination can be a good thing depends on how it does done. Depends also on the fence.
I will comment that the government has made laws that have specifically benefited groups of people which have been benefactory for the people it is intended towards; such as the government support programs for Indigenous people, and you could even include bullying programs that target homophobia and transphobia in schools. I think that marriage is positive discrimination, recognising exactly what I above mentioned, but also recognises the importance for a child where possible to have access to their biological father and mother with ease.
Two, this is more of technical one over semantics, but the current marriage law says nothing about the sexual attraction of the people involved (heck one could be an asexual/bisexual/pansexual), only says something about their gender or more technically their sex (for those who distinguish between the two)
I find two reasons, discussed in complete isolation of each other while that's not the case in reality for the sake of argument, as to why homosexuality was treated in that manner.
The first reason would be the fact that homosexuality had not been widely observed, or had been completely ignored in the natural world for many reasons. Trust me that happened. People believed in spontaneous generation up until a couple hundred years ago. Similarly, there was this guy who suggested washing hands prevents the spread of disease and people laughed at him. So yea, even the educated ones can be stupid.
This argument isn't that strong. What makes you think that the current "educated" ones that say this or that are any better - it is all subjective.
I would comment also and say that historically, homosexuality was indeed widely practiced in pagan societies such as ancient Rome
(I would also add as a unusual fact, so was pedophilia, but lets not go there).
The second reason would be biblical and other religious influence on the society. Not only was comparing humans and the natural world a taboo, people had already accepted what normal was. Normal was what their religion-influenced culture told them it was. So why would a Christian doctor accept or even think that homosexuality was normal? I am very sure there were some who believed so, but not too many and the majority of those were apprehensive of exclusion, like that wash-your-hands guy.
From about 300AD possible (I wouldn't think that strongly before that period). As mentioned, this argument doesn't apply to before that time period I suspect. Although I will say that the biological factor that a man-woman is required for reproduction in most species of animals lends itself to suggest that such is the "normative". I'd be careful with your conclusion, to make the claim, well they were stupid but we are now smarter - it ain't necessarily the case.
I'd argue that if instead of Abrahamic religions, some south eastern religion was dominant, people wouldn't have any issue with homosexuality.
Possibly, we will never know... to be continued, please wait a sec... I have to retype it because page reloaded..
