There is a distinction between my personal beliefs (and how I might be persuaded to accept other types of marriage) versus what might be acceptable to a broad consensus within society. I suppose abortion opponents make the same kinds of distinctions when they accept and promote public policy options which don't fully conform to their philosophical or moral objections to abortion but, nevertheless, do address their primary objective.
With what America is saying across the nation in regards to same-sex marriage, I would think such a proposition would go over as well as a lead balloon.
(1) We wouldn't even be discussing this subject if it were not for the fact that public attitudes about homosexuality have already undergone a sea change of enormous proportions during the past 30-50 years.
(2) Thirty years ago it was EXTREMELY RARE for any prominent person to acknowledge his or her same-sex preference. In Hollywood, for example, phony marriages were arranged to hide true sexual preference (such as Charles Laughton to Elsa Lanchester). In politics, no candidate in their right mind would publicly announce their sexual orientation.
(3) From the polling data that I have seen, it appears that the least resistance to same sex marriage comes from younger people. Consequently, what the medium-term future produces could be dramatically different than the current situation.
(4) If you take a look at polling done in the late 1950's about various aspects of the race issue in this country, the negative responses with respect to integration were even more dramatic than the current adverse poll results regarding same-sex marriage or adoption. So what you are referring to is a "snapshot" in time. And that "snapshot" has already changed significantly even just during the past decade. As we have previously discussed, opposition to social change can be based upon false or grossly exaggerated ideas. There are always those among us who use language to promote fear, disgust, and revulsion toward other human beings and, thus, seek to create irreconciliable differences.
Fortunately, Americans instinctively understand the value of judging people as individuals---not as a group label. MOST Americans perceive "John" or "Ellen" as individual HUMAN BEINGS with specific qualities and characteristics. They don't BEGIN by perceiving John or Ellen as "pervert".
As Americans come to know John or Ellen as human beings, they make reasoned and informed judgments about their intelligence, character, and integrity. Once those judgments are made, no appeals to "dictionary definitions" will carry as much weight as first-hand personal experience---because we do not live our lives by rigid application of dictionary definitions whose only proponents have an animus against gays.
I agree that children should not be guinea pigs for social change. On the other hand, there are thousands of unwanted children who languish in institutions --or-- whom are shuttled from one foster home to another. If a gay couple can prove that they meet the same criteria as a straight couple, I do not believe they should be automatically and permanently rejected from providing a loving, nurturing home to a needy child. Furthermore, during the past 50 years, tens of thousands of gay men already HAVE HAD children. Their ability to be a loving, caring, and nurturing father has already been demonstrated. That ability does not just disappear because they subsequently divorce a woman and enter into a gay relationship. To paraphrase you, "what do the children (biological or adopted) of gay men or lesbians or bisexuals have to say about their parents?"
Here's what you said in response:
There is a distinction between my personal beliefs (and how I might be persuaded to accept other types of marriage) versus what might be acceptable to a broad consensus within society.I'm merely asking what you asked us. Same-sex-blood-brother marriage - a threat to whom?
As for the younger generation being more tolerating of the homosexual lifestyle, of course they are. With GLSEN in the schools, MTVs pro-homosexual bias, TV programs with a very lopsided number of homosexuals compared to the actual homosexual populace, etc. None of which show the real facts of the homosexual lifestyle, which carries with it severe, contagious and deadly health hazards.
As for children, adoption and homosexual parents, here's something I recently wrote:
We adopted two boys of mixed race - they are half brothers with the same biological mom. One was 5-years old when he came to live with us and his brother was 6-months old, and both had issues - emotional and physical.There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals who agree.If you want adopted children to grow up emotionally secure and well adjusted, it is important, more important then can be expressed with words that children are placed in very stable heterosexual families.
There are stable and unstable foster homes and there's no guarantee children in heterosexual foster care will be well adjusted when they turn 18.
I'm not saying this is true of all homosexuals... But with all the stats we have on homosexual violence, emotional, mental, and child abuse issues. With tens of thousands of former homosexuals testifying to the fact that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, we have to realize that putting any child in that environment is definitely not worth the risks.
It's not a perfect world, but when the politically correct garbage is realized for what it is, there's absolutely no reason to recognize homosexual adoption as a healthy alternative for children.