The dominoes effect of politically correct conformity has resulted in the firing of Rogers Sportsnet host Damian Goddard over a tweet he made on Tuesday. His heinous crime? He supports the definition of marriage that has, up until about 10 minutes ago in the 24-hour clock of human history, been defined as being one man and one woman:

How did this contrivance all come about then? Well, a few days ago NHL agent Todd Reynolds spoke out against New York Rangers forward Sean Avery’s public service announcement supporting gay marriage. Reynolds has since taken quite a bit of heat from the thought police, who have called him everything from a homophobe and bigot to a knuckledragging caveman.

As for Reynolds’ own tweet, all he said was, “Very sad to read Sean Avery’s misguided support of same-gender ’marriage’. Legal or not, it will always be wrong.” He didn’t say homosexuality was wrong, and in fact he clarified the remark to say, “This is not hatred or bigotry towards gays. It is not intolerance in any way shape or form. I believe we are all equal. But I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. This is my personal viewpoint. I Do not hate anyone.”

Unfortunately, personal viewpoints and clarifications are of little use in a world where context is an inconvenient truth and it’s far easier to simply label people as homophobes and bigots. The times change quickly, and if you’re not in then you’re in the way, so they say.

The fact is that I’ve never understood what the problem is with allowing gays to marry. If they want to share in the socially constructed contrivance that is a commitment to be monogamous and file joint tax returns, why not allow them to share in the human misery? After all, it’s not as if heterosexuals have a particularly good track record in marriage, and although I’m too lazy to look up the statistics, I’m pretty sure we all know how common divorce is.

Having said that, the reason that the view of a traditional marriage being one man and one woman doesn’t seem bigoted or hateful to me is that, logically speaking, marriage is the heterosexual extension of the natural procreative norm. The union of one man and one woman is a necessity for the creation of the family unit, the procreation of the species and the balance of influence between mother and father. Most homosexuals—but not all—don’t want any part of marriage because marriage is typically a procreative normative.

It isn’t the way I see the world, but I don’t believe that others who see the world this way are bigots. They truly believe that marriage should be reserved for the behaviourally heteronormative people in society on the basis that men and women are the intended natural attraction of the species. The problem with this view, of course, is that some people will illogically conclude that if you believe in the normative heterosexual definition of marriage than you’re thereby calling homosexuals not normal. Which isn’t what’s happening.

At any rate, because heterosexuals compose roughly 89 per cent of the population, homosexual marriage should never be something left up to the democratic prerogative of the majority. The courts in most liberal jurisdictions have ruled that homosexuals can have some form of legally-recognized union, and I think that equality under secular law is consistent with liberal principles.

Having said that, homosexual marriage should never be foisted upon religious institutions who choose to believe heterosexual marriage is sacrosanct. Nor should we look down upon those who uphold such views.