Because traditionally marriage creates dependants for the wage earner. Sex leads to babies, and babies need someone to take care of them…the spouse. The spouse cannot simultaneously give the best care to their children and hold down a full-time job that provides health insurance. It’s in society’s best interest to make sure children are raised well, and providing health insurance for a dependent spouse helps that happen.

Adult children are in theory supposed to be independent and be earning their own health insurance.

That’s my belief, at any rate.

: )

This is one of the reasons that more and more and more employer health plans (a) offer that as an option and (b) have exploded in price and pass the price along to the insured.

I’ve known small businesses that dropped their health plans over such issues. One person doing that can triple the cost of the plan to the business.

Otherwise, we are seeing dramatic drops in fertillity and child bearing all over the world, except in arab countries (which used to have severe fertillity and population shrinkage problems).

It is a broader issue, as is the well established rule of “best interest of the child” which has such problems in application.

Do we allow forceable adoption? If someone richer than you are spots your kids and decides they want them, can they take them away? Remember, in our culture “richer” = “better.”

I’m not sure of solutions, but there are a lot of issues. I think the only way we get through them is to talk about them, and I’m glad to see you doing that.

And it was in Part IV.

Thanks for the heads-up!

Still, you continue to make the point that gay marriage should be prevented because gay couples should not adopt (because they will rob other couples of adopting), and they would be given a better chance at adopting if legally married.

I just completely disagree. Gay people should marry if they want to, and the state should bless their union as it does all other adults who want to marry. The state doesn’t determine which couples might make bad parents at the time of the marriage, and then deny them a license because of it. Yet, this is essentially what you are arguing for gay people.

Scenario One: Two couples are vying to adopt a child. One is a hetero couple of modest means that have saved for years to cover the adoption fee. They are fit to be parents in every discernable respect, but would only be able to offer the child a state-funded schooling at a decent area public school. The second couple is a gay couple. Both of the men work, though one will be leaving his employ to be a full-time father. They have substantial means, and can offer the child private education. All else being equal, I personally believe that a home with the first couple is preferable… but were gay marriage legalized, that determination would not be made, as the only issue that would then be relevant would be the question of income.

Scenario two: A hetero couple with a daughter divorce. The wife goes from boyfriend to boyfriend and from job to job and the husband dates a little as he comes to terms with his orientation — a secret he hid from everyone until after the divorce was finalized — but holds-down a job that he’s had for years. The wife wants complete custody of the child… during the hearings, she raises the specter of her ex being gay. In the months that have passed since the divorce, the husband hasn’t been serious with anyone, but has opted instead to focus on his daughter. In this case, I would hope that the judge would award custody to the father.

Eric Russell: my comment on a broader war was not a quip about the church. There are many actors in this effort, and many of these actors — especially the loud, annoying ones — are missing the point. But since you bring-up the church, I don’t know of any recent efforts of the church to repeal no-fault divorce laws or to enact any legislation that in any way improves the lot of married couples, besides the well-publicized anti-SSM efforts. I may be missing something, though, so please let me know if this is the case.

Don’t even get me started about birth parents.

Your friends, D& J, could possibly be better than a traditional family’s best efforts, in individual cases.

Were I a judge, that argument would not work with me. I’m not intentionally playing the devil’s advocate, I wish I could accept your argument, but that part, at least, doesn’t wash.

Silus, they have. And will continue to do so. The church has long been fighting on behalf of multiple aspects of marriage, and BYU has been holding conventions and discussions of strengthening the family for a long time now. Tons of articles, studies and talks have been devoted to the issues of the family that you speak of.

The issue of gay marriage has come into the spotlight just in the last few years simply as a reaction to gay activists and judges who have been making unprecedented moves.

Just reiterating for my own clarity: it seems like you oppose gay marriage for two reasons; the first is that the dialogue about gay marriage obscures other issues that you think should be addressed more fully; and second, you still believe that children will be more successfully parented by two genders, regardless of the characters of the people becoming the parents. In other words, two exemplary men should not bid for a child that might better be raised by a man and woman of perhaps less stature, and it’s in the state’s interest to see that the two men… don’t even get the chance to try.

I don’t have anything of particular value to add, except the obvious opinion: I disagree, and I certainly hope you change your mind about this.

The surprise to me is that you haven’t mentioned the Church at all here, what it means to be LDS, have a gay but celibate orientation, and how that might color your thinking about legalized marriage for gays.