I had never read this thread before-thanks for bringing it back up (even if it was only to prove the validity of the veggie tales).
I agree that an attitude of grace in public policy is necessary—that’s why I agree that there should be civil rights protections for all Americans, not just those that are Christians. Domestic partner benefits and adoption are both part of that, I think.
However, it has been posed to me that if the definition of marriage is changed (from one man and one woman), we will have sexual anarchy, not stable “diversity”. There is no principled distinction between same sex marriage and polygamist marriages or polyamorist “group” marriages. Soon a bixexual will need to marry both a man and a woman to totally fulfill his sexual orientation. It seems like all of the emotional pleas for rights could be made in these situations, too. Does a line need to be drawn, or do we extend rights in any situation?
amy
Aug 22 2003
09:21 am
I had never read this thread before-thanks for bringing it back up (even if it was only to prove the validity of the veggie tales).
I agree that an attitude of grace in public policy is necessary—that’s why I agree that there should be civil rights protections for all Americans, not just those that are Christians. Domestic partner benefits and adoption are both part of that, I think.
However, it has been posed to me that if the definition of marriage is changed (from one man and one woman), we will have sexual anarchy, not stable “diversity”. There is no principled distinction between same sex marriage and polygamist marriages or polyamorist “group” marriages. Soon a bixexual will need to marry both a man and a woman to totally fulfill his sexual orientation. It seems like all of the emotional pleas for rights could be made in these situations, too. Does a line need to be drawn, or do we extend rights in any situation?