mitchellmckain wrote:NH Baritone wrote:The false assertion has been used to prevent gay folks from becoming parents, and thus as an attack on the gay population's efforts to gain marriage rights.
Yeah I think it would have been interesting to include the adoption issue in the above choices.
I favor the purely semantic compromise of reserving the original meaning of the word marriage while supporting the equal rights to same sex couples in terms of all rights with substance including those regarding adoption - at least in regards to federal policy. I would not however support sanctions against private adoption agencies with policies to support the special interests. My concern is simply to put the interests of those whose lives are effected first, especially the children, without the interference of some unilateral political policy. When dealing with human lives flexibility is crucial.
"Semantic compromise"? Can you explain to me how this is any different from accommodation of bigotry?
How is your relationship with your wife any different or more special or more a "marriage" than my relationship with my partner? Do you really think that you love or loved your wife more than I loved my partner?
Allow me to quote myself from an
earlier post when it was suggested that marriage be reserved for the church-based ceremonies:
The problem is that it (reserving the word "marriage") requires a rethink/reworking of the terms "marriage" & "married" by everyone in the country.
What do you put in the blank for marital status?
Are atheist couples (not married in a church) robbed of the opportunity to call themselves "married"?
What about oversees? When you enter Germany, Japan, or Jamaica, how do you indicate marital status?
What do you put in it's place when even the term "marital status" itself must be sacrificed?
You are asking every element of society to accommodate a minority. Even I, an outspoken member of that minority, think such far-reaching accommodation is ridiculous. However, when you allow same-sex couples to enter into marriage, no one else has to think about any element of how the institution effects them.
Consider the nation's history with religious objections: Any church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or coven can refuse marriage to any couple, and they've been allowed to do so ever since the birth of the Union. They retain that right when the country allows same-sex couples to "marry." To use the inter-racial marriage metaphor, any church may consider a Filipino's marriage to a Euro-descendant invalid. The church can boot such a couple out of the service and put signs reading "no half-breeds" on their church lawns, but but that doesn't mean that the state should kowtow to that prejudice. In fact, the state does not have to even acknowledge that such prejudice exists (until leads to other secular discriminations). The religious objections for same-sex marriage should be managed the same way. The state has no business enforcing a religion's prejudice.
And when expressing your fears about whether gay folks can be good parents, consider this from the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
"For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.
Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.
Since evidence indicates that no harm befalls children who are raised in households headed by a gay couple, it appears that your statement essentially states, "When dealing with outmoded bigoted ideas, flexibility and accommodation is crucial." And I honestly don't think that's what you want to put forth.
