[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Thanks for the response. I don’t think we’ll ever really agree on this, but it is good to try to understand your points. So thanks again. If I understand you, you believe state-sponsored marriage is ideal and necessary because it promotes the survival of society and the species. It does this by providing a model for the “best” method of raising children. Where I am confused is why you say this is not, in your opinion, an ideal but the law itself is ideal. I get more confused when you talk about homosexuality disappearing and being “only a blip.” To me, this sounds like an impossible dream.
I guess maybe I see myself as being a “realist” in that we as society(ies) have to deal with the reality that the “best” way to raise children OFTEN cannot be for a lot of reasons. And thus, “lesser goods” ARE good and have value to society that should be recognized.
To exemplify, a close family member work for a large southern state to place children in foster homes (and sometimes adopted homes). According to her, this job is extremely difficult, especially with abused children and children with other “issues” (mental/physical). She has had to send children to sort of institutions or out-of-state in order to place them at all. IMO, a homosexual married couple, even if you are correct and they are not “ideal” (or whichever word you would prefer), would be superior to institutionalization or abusive parents. Bluntly, IMO, in some cases, “two dads” or “two moms” might actually be superior for some children: A girl who was abused, for example; or a “large” 15 year old boy with mental and anger issues for a converse example. I hope I’m making sense here. WHile this is only a small example of what I see to be a number of societal benefits to the legalization of gay marriage, I hope I’m being clear.
Also, to continue the tangent a little further, this is one of the reasons I get so angry when “the left” attacks Michelle Bachmann (sp?) personally or calls her a bad person. She deserves a LOT of respect and admiration for what she has done with foster children. I don’t want her to be president, but I’m glad she has done all the good she has done.
–
I can’t remember if I deleted this above or not, but I’m not sure the state should be involved in marriages beyond property issues. But given that it is and how strongly it is now involved, I think marriage or civil unions (with equal rights…which may be difficult to obtain) are necessary.
Oh well, I’ve been off on a tangent for awhile now, my thoughts seem pretty scattered here, and the wife’s alarm clock just went off so I have no time to order them. I’m going to run over to the pow-wow thread quick before all my time is up. lol. Have a good one. [/quote]
In my formative years, my best friend’s dad was an openly gay man living with another man. He had weekend custody and my friend and I would often stay at his house. He was a caring, loving, generous, kind guy whom I truly loved. He died of AIDS when I was in college and I was very broken up about his passing. I miss him to this day. I say this to let you know that I am not removed from the situation. But the issue is beside the point.
It’s nice that they can take care of kids, particularly abused ones. But this is not some national crisis screaming out for a solution that is being blocked by atavistic Republican statesmen and their bible-thumping constituency.
In fact, it’s not even the reason that homosexuals want to get married AT ALL.
That’s the thing. [/quote]
Aren’t you shifting the goalposts a bit here though? If you want to talk about the primary reasons homosexuals want to marry we can (although I think we both know them). I had thought discussion has primarily been about the role of law and government in relation to homosexuals.
We seem to agree that homosexuals can provide loving and caring homes for children. You seem to be arguing that that in-and-of-itself is not reason enough to legalize marriage, primarily because it is not the “ideal” situation for children. I think you used the word “model”. To me, this was the interesting part of our conversation. You seemed to be arguing that only your model was “worthy” of government acceptance.
Others, of course, disagree with your assessment that homosexuals can provide loving and caring homes. But it’s good to see that we can agree on this point. BTW, I don’t recall reading your opinion of civil unions. For or against? IMO, if they provide the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as marriage, they are an acceptable compromise. That said, all too often, it seems people are using them to attempt to block certain rights from homosexuals (usually pertaining to child-rearing) or at least that is my impression.
As far as the national crisis is concerned, I think we are close in America. Far too many children are growing up in single-parent households, without fathers, with abuse, and in horrible situations. I suppose it has always been this way. And I suppose the single-parent/without fathers issues is somewhat of a tangent. But I don’t really see any reason NOT to allow loving, supporting homosexuals to marry and raise kids (or, for that matter, loving supportive singles). Regardless of “crisis level” gay marriage is unquestionably being primarily blocked by “atavistic Republican statesmen and their bible-thumping constituency” isn’t it? (although I would certainly have worded it differently. “bible-thumping” seems somewhat pejorative).