Do you think you could oblige by keeping this thread on topic or starting a new thread to address your concerns?
Okay, I'll do both in fact.
As for the on-topic part.
The core idea behind this, as I see it (regardless of how well or how poorly it is implemented), is that children should be made aware at an early age that homosexuality exists, that it's okay, and that all the permutations that may arise from this (such as "two mommies" or "two daddies", a gay father who is still married to mommy, or what have you) are part of life.
All of which I fully agree with. If we take race as an example, we know that children are aware of racial differences early on. It's because you can see them! So when they are taught to be tolerant of racial differences, they know what the hell you are talking about! But with homosexuality, since it cannot be known by looking at someone, a little background is in order. I would say that the background should be age-appropriate, of course. But I think tolerance should be taught to children in schools whether the parents like it or not
(just like you pay taxes whether you like it or not, you provide proper medical care to your children whether you like it or not, you provide an education to your children and it has to cover "the basics" whether you like it or not). The reason is the same: Society functions better that way. It's not "all about you". Your child will benefit from learning about tolerance early on, and society will benefit. It's like vaccinations. People complain about potential side effects, but the real complaint is that they don't like being told what to do, even if doing so has almost no cost to them and a strong measurable benefit to others.
Taxes, diseases, and most importantly, other people are not going away. And gays aren't going away.
Insofar as this is a men's issue, it is, but only just slightly and somewhat tengentally. It is because the vast
majority of crap that aimed against gays, if it is aimed to one gender, it is aimed at men. Therefore, clearly being a man and being gay is somehow "worse" than being gay. I admit it's tangental.
Rob, your argument that this is a men's issue is in fact the only one I see as attaching it exclusively to men (as opposed to parents) and it's interesting. But it's problematic.
With the invention of DNA testing and the subsequent confusion in the courts as to what makes a father (DNA or fathering or both? -- the answer seems to be -- neither if the father benefits but either if it costs him), I think its clear that marriage as a mechanism to preserve known paternity, if it ever really was that, has utterly failed. It follows then, that marriage serves no purpose. And yet, here it is, with people getting married eagerly to this day, gays fighting for equality in marriage, and politicians vying to make themselves look friendlier to marriage. So, it's still important in this society, even without paternity assurances. The word "bastard" doesn't really refer to what it once did, and no one really cares if you are one anymore, so the "bite" of being born outside of marriage just isn't there anymore.
Obviously there's a lot more to this "marriage" thing than knowing paternity (why would gays want to marry?), more to it than protecting one's children against the terrible social stigma of being a bastard (no one cares), more than the specter of some historical paternity (it's usually the women who want to marry first). Face it, marriage is biological, it's in our blood as human beings.
It ain't gonna be destroyed by the fems, or by the government, or by the gays, or by anyone else.