[breakem]

I don't disagree with what is the most stable situation. The government doesn't require the MOST stable situation. So what's the point. We "allow" all kninds of family situations, ignorant people to marry (and post I might add : ), sterile people. We allow single parents. Most or many (don't know the number)states allow homosexuals to adopt. So what's the point of what's ideal. We're discussing what the law should allow.

[breakem]

folks, I'm gay-marriaged out. My better two-thirds wants to go see Master and Commander. I hope it's not about swarthy rugged men traveling the seas for months without women in the presence of young cabin boys. I'll read your replies and answer if not too burned out. Thanx for the sparring.

[mcg1969]

We're discussing what the law should allow.

I will say it again, it is not a matter of what the law allows. If two people want to go to a hyper-liberal church and have the pastor perform a marriage ceremony and pronounce them man and wife, or man and man, or man and wife and wife 2, so be it. Nobody is stopping them from doing this. They're just not going to receive the same benefits from the government for doing so. And equal protection does not mean equal provision.

Take my charitable tax deduction analogy. I am free to donate money to whatever cause I want---well, save a random terrorist organization here and there (a subject for another thread, please :)). But I can only deduct on my tax return those charities that are registered non-profits under appropriate U.S. Treasury codes. I am not being prevented from doing anything: I'm just receving the same encouragement.

[MEGoody]

"The government doesn't require the MOST stable situation. So what's the point."

The point is, what provides for a stable family is what is best for society.

Divorce is rampant and way too easy. I'd like to see that changed. But for right now, we are talking about allowing gays to legally marry (no matter what PC name you stick on it). Not good for society. I can't support it.