Replies

I think the article mixes the concepts of moral equality with legal equality.

I had that impression, too. But I did notice that this article did not lean heavily on religious pronouncements or reproduction biology. It saves itself from being dismissed with, "Well, that's fine, but I don't think you should be imposing your beliefs on others," or "What about the couples that don't have kids, while some gay and lesbian families do have kids in them."

It makes the point of "here's what gay people are asking of YOU when they want you to go along with gay marriage." I think many of the points are potentially refutable, but so far, its the most intelligent and persuasive argument I've seen put forth against gay marriage. It's clear that it does recognize civil union as a way of dealing with the unfairness issue, and it seems that the President is on board with letting states try that, if they wish.

If gay marriage is not going to happen imminently, then a reasonable middle path that resembles a compromise that the mushy middle can accept will be the only alternative. If gay activist groups would accept this, then they will be more successful in getting the whole enchilada in a generation or so. If religious conservatives would acknowledge that gays are not going back in the closet, and that we will always have homosexual people in our society, and would allow them the right to make recognized agreements that allow them to manage their own households, then they stand a reasonable chance of making that arrangement stick for at least a couple of generations.

I'm looking at this issue more on an individual basis. The two women next door are married, having had a ceremony in their church. They are good people and well liked in our neighborhood. They are not activists nor do they seek to be represented by others. They just want to live their lives.

There is a lot of fighting of the "agenda" and extremists on this site without acknowledgement that this is an issue that effects individuals.

I don't know the answer to compromise or civil union. I oppose changing the constitution because people want to keep homosexuals in their place, whereever that is.

Most polls show that opposition to this is a religious issue. Regardless of what people think about homosexuality, the roots of opposition seem to always go back to the old testamant. My opinion is that is not a good basis for the government to declare homosexuals as immoral. In fact the government should not enter that arena. It is an issue of legal standing and access to government liscensing.