First, there is little likelihood that “marriage” is likely. Perhaps a civil union. It would be a union which offers legal benefit for rights of survivorship and access to accounts or personal belongings.
I am not sure there is really a difference, other than giving it an alternative name.
Polygamy is an entirely different issue legally. Multiple wives up to large numbers is nothing like a one-to-one homosexual civil union.
No, but it is an alternative view on marriage. Homosexual marriages (which is what is being asked for) is an alternative view on marriage. Why is it not bigotted to allow one, but not allow the other? If three guys and a girl or three girls and a guy feel they have a right to all get married, are you not failing to validate their beliefs? Where is the line drawn? What if I wanted to marry my dog and felt that certain behaviors (she wags her tail when I mention it!) show the concent. Yes, extreme, but you are the one wanting to move the line. So where does the line get drawn now.
Culturally, we are moving closer to recognition of two people in a legal sense. It’s a matter of time and cultural shift. We already have homosexual couples even though they do not have the benefits of the law which heterosexual marriages have. The process of change is slow and will certainly vary from state to state.
But ultimately what is the impact? If statistically, a married man and woman provide the optimal home for a child, can you still make a preference for that in adoption? Or is this status change going to demand we ignore the differences for the sake of making two people feel better about themselves? Can we say "sorry, your not optimal" without getting the reprocussions of the bigot card? How do we handle that?
Yes, I know this is a dirty issue. Cases of debate over black children in white adoptive homes being wrong due to the inability for white folks to cater to their cultural needs is an ugly one. And no, I do not think that a black child couldn't be served well in a loving white home (or vice versa).....
But if homosexuality is a biological flaw, is it dangerous to put a child in a homosexual home? What about a pair of known alchololics (some claim another genetic fault)? Are we saying we can't even ask the question for fear of being labelled a bigot?
What about a child placed in the home of a former pedophile? If he has repented and a psychologist feels he is now ok, do we now have to accept his application BECAUSE we want him to feel validated that he moved on?
Questions folks. I think we should be ALLOWED to ask questions without fear of BEING labelled bigots.
JMS