Where have you been? We've posted dozens of articles and had thousands of debates on FR.
"It's just not right" doesn' quite cut it for me as a reason to deny certain rights.
Once again, allow the churches to keep the instition of "marriage" holy, but civil unions hurt no one.
If you define civil unions the way the Massachusetts legislature did in proposed amendment, you establish it as equal to marriage in everything but name. If this definition is used across the country, the implications are enormous. But never mind "small things" like opening up the treasury for marriage benefits, an explosion of sham gay civil unions, the changing of marriage laws (remember that hypothetically, there would of necessity be only one set of laws to cover marriage and gay civil unions) to help it fit the different issues of same sex couples.
The bigger effects will be deeper and will compound over generations. Marriage/unions will no longer function in the social sphere the way marriage has done in the past. Men and women that head stable families are powerful role models that allow children to grow up in more ideal circumstance.
If you say it is nonsense that marriage gravitates toward a less central role in child-bearing, family formation, please refute not me but the studies of the trends in Denmark and Norway.
Well said. Homosexual adoption is horrifying, and it would only increase under homosexual marriage.