Love, Sex, Marriage.
It all seemed fairly straight forward as society needs to build from somewhere, the concept of cohesion and unity. I thought that children needed to view a duality in parents to learn the principles of that cohesion, just as nature provides us with polarity to understand the flow of electricity or any of the opposites that contribute to the function of existence.
I can't recall when I took ownership of the idea that marriage needed to be saved from the same-sexers, it may have been in science or biology class that I was lead astray because I didn't have a religious upbringing by any stretch. In fact, my upbringing was in a family of disunity and chaos brought on by adultery of one or more parents. This is why I believe my former views on same-sex marriage stemmed from the scientist mind I value and not because God said it is wrong.
I find it incredible that I still don't have such negative feelings about adultery that I once had about same-sex marriage. Adultery should be seen as the greatest threat to marriage, especially since it has had such an impact on my life, yet I find it difficult to get excited about people having sex with someone other than their spouse.
From a religious point of view, people are not to have sex with anyone except their spouse. Sex is intended to be confined to marriage and this is where I've had to adjust my position so as not to be a hypocrite.
I could never tell someone to wait until they were married before having sex or that they shouldn't have an affair, I would simply say it was, "your business". I don't even think I would tell someone to be in love before having sex. This is a far cry from the guy who wanted to save the definition of marriage. Since the intended marriage doesn't exists in our society, why did I ever think it needed to be saved?
So people, fall in love, get married then have sex. Perhaps in a generation or so, marriage will have been saved.