Post by gkchesterton on Jun 16, 2007 14:07:58 GMT -5
olivia said:
I voted yes.While there are many reasons, I'll narrow it down to two.
A) I personally am not offended by it. Marriage in the eyes of God, imho, is not quite the same as marriage in the eyes of the state.
One of the primary problems I have with modern society is it fascinated by personal feelings. It really doesn't matter if your personally offended. Its whether it is good for the state and the people. Marriage is a fundamental building block in society. Saying that the state is separate from marriage is blind to the effects of marriage on the state.
The state legislates in every sort of morality. It tells me I can't steal. It tells me I can't murder. It tells me that, in many cases, I can't lie. No one objects to that. Funny enough if the matter involves the region below the hips and above the knees people start worrying that the state is developing a moral code that it already has.
B) It's a matter of health care as well, especially in light of the fact that many gay/lesbian couples are adopting. And yes I support that, because at the moment being a citizen of MI, the foster care is in a Very bad state.
So you would advocate say placing a child with a family of thieves because it is better than them staying in the foster system? Or have you even considered that there are more eligible adults requesting adoption than their are children to fill the need in the US. Hence, adoptions abroad. Or have you stopped to consider that the majority of these adults are Evangelical Christians? No? Somehow I didn't think so.
[qoute]It is a hot topic of discussion amongst our politicians of late. I would rather see a gay/lesbian couple who have love to give adopt a child and get them out of the foster care system.[/quote]
Me, I'd rather see the foster system reformed and the child placed with a loving couple than sent to a place where there sexual identities will be marred and they have a nearly double chance, statistically, of being sexually abused.
Does this mean that unless the couple is married the child would not be covered by one partner's health care? No, not at all. And that's not the worry. The worry is that in these situations, one parent who chooses to remain at home would have to go uncovered as the majority of insurance companies would not cover them.
Not bloody likely. Homemakers in homosexual "couples" are exceedingly rare. Exceedingly. I can dig for figures if you need them. Its one of the reasons their incomes tend to be high (resulting in homosexual based tourism). So you concern becomes a gay rights issue not a child issue.
It's already been a problem here in the state of MI since gay marriage was voted down a few years back.
Thank God. It was voted down with some help from the Church I might add. There is nothing more devastating than to a child than lack of a proper family. Why you would want to intentionally place children in such a harmful situation is absolutely beyond me. Why you'd want to do it when their are more than enough hetro-sexual couples to fill the need is flabbergasting.
I think it's one thing for a church to sanctify gay marriage and another thing for the government to hand out a piece of paper which says you're married.
It is not just a piece of paper. Even in our wounded state that "piece of paper" describes rights available to both parties and historically exists to provide protection to couples seeking children. Your entire argument hinges on it *not* being just a piece of paper.