Last time I checked heterosexuals can get AIDS too. Your argument is illogical and absurd at best. I might have some respect if you weren’t taking an economic “queers are going to cause the price of our health insurance to rise” point of view. If that is your best shot and reason to deny civil unions, you are standing on awful shaky ground.
Let’s try a different approach. According to the US Centers for Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm , the CDC estimates that approximately 63% of all AIDS cases in the US occur among men who have sex with men. Do I hate or condemn men who have sex with men? No, I do not. I’ve made many mistakes in my life. The main point is to learn from your mistakes and to try to improve yourself.
I see that there are public health issues that arise from men who have sex with men, and that some people want us to celebrate this life style regardless of the consequences to public health. Raising public health concerns might get you branded a “racist” and a “bigot”, after all. Yes, of course (anticipating your possible argument?), heterosexuals spread various STDs, but within the US, AIDS has largely been spread by homosexuals.
In the early 1980s, there were 3 groups infected with the virus: homosexuals, Haitians and hemophiliacs. There aren’t that many Haitians or hemophiliacs around; thus the virus has largely been spread by homosexuals. This does not mean that I would deny medical care to infected people. I wrote what I wrote because I was under the impression that you had not thought about some of the possible long-term ramifications of such a radical redefinition of the family. A “live and let live” philosophy is too careless an approach to take when we’re talking about radically redefining marriage.
On another note, boys are much better off when they have fathers. Again, this is a generalization. I’m sure that boys have successfully been raised without fathers. I have to ask, however, why adult desires are given top priority in these discussions about marriage now.
Easy divorce has gotten us used to denying children either a mother or a father for the sake of adults. I see gay marriage/civil unions as an extension of easy divorce. There is no way we could have gone from a situation where divorce was rare straight into a consideration of civil unions or gay marriage.
Every gay family with children is a step family. Every gay family lacks either a mother or a father by design. Unless we’re talking about a union of second cousins, the child cannot be related to both partners.
When easy divorce was being debated, some said that it would be good for children because they wouldn’t have to hear their parents fight. I also remember reading an article about how it would be good for kids because they would have more toys, two rooms and more brothers and sisters to play with (a materialistic argument). It took 30 years to find out that it is not in the best interests of children at all. Children have their own needs which are entirely seperate from the wishes and desires of adults.
There are those who assume that gay marriage would be good for children and that civil unions do not degrade the meaning of marriage. Civil unions, however, further seperate marriage from procreation. They are “marriage lite”. Heterosexuals would undoubtedly enter into civil unions, thus further eroding the status of traditional marriage. Civil unions are, again, all about adult desire, as is gay marriage.
If you give various benefits to people who are living together and caring for each other regardless of whether or not children are involved, then why not give benefits to people who are taking care of elderly parents or other relatives? The government gives benefits to married couples because it is in the interests of the government to support the next generation. Without the next generation, we cease to exist. Not all married people produce children, but the majority do, and the rest do not radically challenge the traditional definition of marriage. Are we giving benefits because of the next generation, or are we giving benefits because adults care for each other? Why should adults get government benefits for caring for each other? It’s a nice thing to do, but why finance it? Should the benefits only be given for adults having sex with each other?
This has been a rather rambling answer, but gay marriage/civil unions, as you know, never existed before the present time. It is wise and prudent to consider why this is so.