http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111810.html
"You don't define the ramifications."
And you say you oppose gay marriage? Are you joking? Why do you oppose it, if you need the ramifications spelled out? Do you really need it spelled out?
Okay: our society has a stake in protecting those institutions responsible for creating healthy, productive citizens.
Marriages between men and women provide the stable legal, social and moral basis on which to raise families and nurture children. No other arrangement has been shown to be better for raising children to be productive and successful members of society.
So. Society has a stake in promoting and supporting traditional marriage. Other arrangements do not merit the status we accord this institution. Because they don't and can't provide the same function. A society which ignores biologic and social reality, and claims or legislates that that other arrangements should be considered no differently than traditional marriage, is setting itself up for disaster.
Is that clear enough for you?
I'm discussing my opposition to the FMA. What are you talking about?
Maybe what's going on in Canada will clue you in about the connections.
What's going on in Canada is their business, not yours unless you are Canadian. In any case, it's not mine.
And you say you oppose gay marriage? Are you joking? Why do you oppose it, if you need the ramifications spelled out? Do you really need it spelled out?
Well, you threw out so many complaints that I was unsure of which ones you thought would be resolved by usurping the legitimate prerogative of the states to make their own decisions, that I thought you might be able to very quickly spell it out. And yes, I oppose gay marriage in my state.
Marriages between men and women provide the stable legal, social and moral basis on which to raise families and nurture children. No other arrangement has been shown to be better for raising children to be productive and successful members of society.
Okay, you sold me. We need however to enlarge the amendment to prevent divorce, "living together" by heterosexuals, and above all, forbidding singles from adopting children. That would fit right in with your goals.
Society has a stake in promoting and supporting traditional marriage.
I agree completely. But that is a far cry from forbidding a state from chosing another path.
Other arrangements do not merit the status we accord this institution.
Again I agree. But exactly what other arrangements are you including and what would you do about these other arrangements?
A society which ignores biologic and social reality, and claims or legislates that that other arrangements should be considered no differently than traditional marriage, is setting itself up for disaster.
You may be right. But what is it that makes your judgment or mine so divine that it belongs in the supreme law of the land? The very essence of federalism is that states can make mistakes. As long as those mistakes do not infringe on the just rights of its citizens, they are free to make laws different from other states. Everyone does not share the same political, moral, economic, or even religious values you do. I do not want same sex marriage in my state. But I will defend the right of every other states' citizens to decide for themselves how they want to deal with gay and lesbian unions. It is none of your business and certainly is none of mine.