[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you end up with government dictating who, and how many people, can marry. What if bi-sexuals want to marry one person of each gender? Why should they have to commit to only half of their sexual identity? Or, why should polygamy between consenting adults, sound of mind, be illegal? Yes, yes, slippery slope arguement, I know. But, I’m asking these questions sincerely.
I understand where you are coming from here, believe me. And I think it would be nice if we could do a little de-regulating in some ways, but let me throw a hypothetical at you:
Let’s say we have a child who just so happens to be a ward of the state. It is in everybody’s best interests to see the child adopted by a guardian who has the means and the desire to do so.
When screening possible adoptive parents, what criteria should the state use in choosing a suitable home for the child? We have plenty of studies that show a stable home life for kids is best achieved by a married couple. Shouldn’t the state be discriminatory as far as wanting to get the “best possible deal” for the child?
You see, in cases like this, marital status matters to a government, and it would behoove us to recognize the benefits of the institution. As nice as it would be to avoid the sometimes messy debate about this topic, we can’t just throw our hands up in the air and call the whole thing off, can we?[/quote]
The arguement- with which I agree- is that government should recognise civil unions which carry the same legal rights and obligations as mariages currently do while leaving the term “marriage” to religios institutions and out of the realm of government.
As far as the debate about children, “studies have shown” that gay parents are just as effective at raising healthy and successful children as their striaght counterparts. This may be a result of gay households being typically wealthier than the average or maybe two mommies really can be twice as nurturing.
How did I end up on this topic?