I've come to a conclusion that I'm against gay marriage.

[Lorizael]

I support gay marriage, but only insomuch as I support gay rights generally. Marriage is not an important issue to me, and I think it might do us some good as a society if we explored other types of interpersonal relationships. I recognize, however, that marriage is important to a lot of people. And because of that importance, I think getting society to accept gay marriage will go a long way toward getting society to accept gays.

[Flubber]

Thanks for the article back on the main topic. The writer seems to be taking a very common sense and practical approach.

The reality is that as much as BK and others may not like it, gay marriage is coming. Younger folks are generally more in favor than older so long term it will be accepted. Opponents may win battles now, some that seem large and important but it is a rearguard action they are fighting and losing.

On gay adoption I saw a quote from Mitt Romney in May where he mentioned that only one state precludes them ( I have seen another source say two states but haven't checked) but that as a matter of states rights he sees it as something for the individual states to determine and it appears its a decided issue. I note that Romney has held the position consistently that it's a state's decision for decades

Gay adoption is hardly a battleground issue anymore. In Canada, gay marriage is decided. I predict in 20 years gay marriage will exist in a majority of the states of the UNited States

[Al B. Sure!]

My basis for supporting gay marriage is what Blankenhorn criticizes: equality under the law. Marriage is a civil institution that has nothing to do with religion so religious precepts are irrelevant.

[Elok]

So my intention is to try something new. Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same. For example, once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that marrying before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace? Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation? Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?

Will this strategy work? I don’t know. But I hope to find out.

I'm going to go with no, for the most part. Getting gay marriage is relatively easy because people can take up the cause without any personal cost (except social pressure from those who disagree, which is a given with every significant cause and some insignificant ones as well). If you got on board with it early, you can even have fun screaming at the bad people who oppose you and enjoying the other perks of being among the enlightened few. By contrast, taking marriage seriously would entail self-sacrifice and discipline, which sends Modern Man into anaphylactic shock.

[Flubber]

If all the foster kids were given to be adopted - they would not be able to meet the demand. So what they do is they make them wait.

Ben are you seriously asserting that some mysterious " they" are intentionally and purposefully NOT allowing some foster children to be adopted by qualified and suitable people since they have to retain some children to meet later demand... I have to ask because sometimes your meaning is at odds with the normal or dictionary meanings of words. In his thread alone I have learned that to bk

Children means infants or newborns and not people under the age of 18
"most" apparently means approximately 15 percent


Oh and is there anyone else noticing that bk has
been a bit more extreme in the lack of believability and cohesiveness of his posts lately. He can be amusing but there is usually some attempt at logic or some aknowledgement of contradictory facts. Here the effort seems to be completely lacking....I mean usually he is far more active in writing a dozen incomprehensible posts before taking some new position. Here he has taken a position which is obviously and provably factually wrong and has been lackluster in his denials obfuscation and restatements. Perhaps he is unwell ?

[Asher]

"perhaps"?