Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Solon, can we get a review?
|
I may attempt a short summary.
There are two conflicting forces in the fight to define the purpose of marriage.
One believes that government should sanction marriage for the purpose of propagating our species in an ideal family situation where the birth father and birth mother raise the child.
The other believes that the government should sanction marriage for the purpose of promoting love and healthy relationships between two people.
Those who promote the latter purpose do not believe that it will have any impact on the former. Those who support the former purpose disagree, believing that the shift in focus from future generations to current generations will have a negative overall societal impact on future generations.
It's my understanding that minn_stat believes the former.
As for me, I'm conflicted about the whole matter. I'm not offended at the idea of two homosexuals entering a marriage or civil union, but I remain unconvinced of the necessity that government sanction their relationship. If it's a matter of filing joint income taxes or receiving insurance benefits, I can see the argument. If it's purely a symbolic act, then I'd prefer to take a wait and see approach. On this day, it seems appropriate to quote William Buckley in the first publication of National Review when he declared that he was standing athwart history, yelling STOP!