t changes the definition of an intrinsic element of society in a way that minimizes what that bond means to society. Marriage is what marriage is. Marriage was around before government said what it was.
“It’s like going out and saying, ‘That tree is a car.’ Well, the tree’s not a car. A tree’s a tree. Marriage is marriage. You can say that tree is something other than it is. It can redefine it. But it doesn’t change the essential nature of what marriage is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of the benefit of both the man and the woman, a natural unitive according to nature, unitive, that is for the purposes of having and rearing children and for the benefit of both the man and the woman involved in that relationship.
And for the benefit of society because we need to have stable families of men and woman bonded together to raise children. That’s what marriage is. You can say two people who love each other is marriage. But then why limit it to just two people? Why not three people? Why not 10 people?
If it’s just about love and everybody needs to be treated equally, then why not 10? Why not allowing nieces and aunts to marry? Why not? If marriage means anyone who is in love, well, then, let everybody who is in love get married. But it’s not what marriage is”
Someone really shouldn’t be allowed out without his headgear.
I wonder how Ricky feels about marrying ketchup bottles at the end of a waiter’s shift?