|
Why not compromise and have a civil union? Seems like a good idea. Homosexual couples can get all the benefits etc of a marriage and opponents don't have to share the same term (word) with them. This is a practical, pragmatic solution to me. Everyone comes out a winner. As long as you get the same privileges what difference does the name make?
Also, is there an issue with gay adoption or are gays allowed to adopt freely? This seems like a natural "marriage" to me. Letting gay couples adopt, early and often. Way too many positives and very little negatives (as far as I can tell). Kill two birds with one stone.
As a conservative-moderate, I think homosexual unions are a great reinforcement of family values in terms of a familial unit. It's almost "antigay" (the stereotype that is). Stable, presumably well-incomed gay couples have the means and wherewithal to raise a family and make a positive contribution to society AND simultaneously reduce the orphan population (potentially) and help relieve the child social welfare system a bit. The more kids out of foster home and orphanages or as wards of the state, and into loving, stable families the better.
I'm not seeing the negative here, what am I missing?
|