California's Prop 8

[Azreal Oreo]

So.... Looks like California said "No" to gay marriage.... Proposition 8 was approved, which bans gay marriage. I personally think it's stupid, as it shouldn't matter if gay people get married. But, that's just me. I know a few people on here feel differently about that. But I personally couldn't care less if gay people marry each other or not.

[pocomouse]

I know... the Theocrats won this round.  I can't believe a state like California would pass a law banning equal rights. 

Still, it's the only low note in an otherwise wonderful day!

[Weisseman]

I'm given to understand that this subject could cause heated discussions so I'd like to see things kept civil please

[Arbutus]

I know, and gay marriage got banned in Arizona and Florida too. Bigotry and petty malice won this round.

Actually, though, there's a lot of reason for hope in California. The Proposition 8 that just passed is identical in wording to Proposition 22, which passed back in 2000 in California. Last time, the vote was 61% in favor, 39% against. This time? Only 52%-48%. And if you look at which groups voted which way, you'll see that about 2/3 of young people support gay marriage, whereas about 2/3 of the 65-and-up crowd oppose it... not to be mean, but 10 or 15 years from now, only one of those groups is going to be around.

[Kay Alett]

So.... Looks like California said "No" to gay marriage.... Proposition 8 was approved, which bans gay marriage. I personally think it's stupid, as it shouldn't matter if gay people get married. But, that's just me. I know a few people on here feel differently about that. But I personally couldn't care less if gay people marry each other or not.

It's kinda dumb IMO, everyone says "marrage is sacred", I belive Chris Rock said it best when he said, "Marrage isn't sacred, not in America. Home of 'who wants to marry a millionare', 'big fat Fiance', 'Bachelor', 'Bachelorette'. Marrage isn't sacred."

Not to mention America has a HIGH divorce rate. I'd have to agree that it isn't sacred here in America, if gays wish to get married, let them marry, they have same right to be as miserable as any other married couple.

[Epsy]

So.... Looks like California said "No" to gay marriage.... Proposition 8 was approved, which bans gay marriage. I personally think it's stupid, as it shouldn't matter if gay people get married. But, that's just me. I know a few people on here feel differently about that. But I personally couldn't care less if gay people marry each other or not.

It's kinda dumb IMO, everyone says "marrage is sacred", I belive Chris Rock said it best when he said, "Marrage isn't sacred, not in America. Home of 'who wants to marry a millionare', 'big fat Fiance', 'Bachelor', 'Bachelorette'. Marrage isn't sacred."

Not to mention America has a HIGH divorce rate. I'd have to agree that it isn't sacred here in America, if gays wish to get married, let them marry, they have same right to be as miserable as any other married couple.

The "sanctity of marriage" is not, has never been, and will never be, a valid argument against gay marriage.

[Feathertail]

I know, and gay marriage got banned in Arizona and Florida too. Bigotry and petty malice won this round.

It is because people associate any dissent to the pro-gay marriage standpoint with "bigotry and petty malice" that I got soundly flamed by one of my (formerly) favorite writers, thus leading me to write the Argument song. ^.^;

I'm not going to pretend that no one who voted yes to those amendments was a bigot. I'm not going to close my eyes and say that very unkind people like the n00b that Promagnum described don't exist. But I think that as long as the pro and anti-gay marriage crowds associate opposition to their viewpoints with pure evil, that there's never going to be a civil discussion between the two sides. And there're going to be a lot more hurt feelings than mine and Promagnum's.

I belong to a church that provided extensive financial support to Proposition 8's backers -- one that almost never involves itself in politics, but insisted on this amendment. I fully support their position, and I would've voted yes on that amendment if it had come up in my state. And I don't hate anyone. I wouldn't be here if I did.

I've heard your arguments, and I disagree with them. That doesn't mean that I'm hateful and bigoted.

[Dusty]

Hmm, it is a shame about gay marriage being banhammered like that, but I guess different people have different ideas on what marriage is. It's just a word for me, so I don't really understand why in this day and age so many people still feel that it is still significant religion-wise but I won't vilify them for it.

[Arbutus]

I know, and gay marriage got banned in Arizona and Florida too. Bigotry and petty malice won this round.

It is because people associate any dissent to the pro-gay marriage standpoint with "bigotry and petty malice" that I got soundly flamed by one of my (formerly) favorite writers, thus leading me to write the Argument song. ^.^;

I'm not going to pretend that no one who voted yes to those amendments was a bigot. I'm not going to close my eyes and say that very unkind people like the n00b that Promagnum described don't exist. But I think that as long as the pro and anti-gay marriage crowds associate opposition to their viewpoints with pure evil, that there's never going to be a civil discussion between the two sides. And there're going to be a lot more hurt feelings than mine and Promagnum's.

I belong to a church that provided extensive financial support to Proposition 8's backers -- one that almost never involves itself in politics, but insisted on this amendment. I fully support their position, and I would've voted yes on that amendment if it had come up in my state. And I don't hate anyone. I wouldn't be here if I did.

I've heard your arguments, and I disagree with them. That doesn't mean that I'm hateful and bigoted.

*nods* I buy that. I know that not all those who oppose gay marriage do so because they're bigoted, and I know that you in particular are the farthest thing from a kneejerk voter who supports policies based on his own prejudices. Yet those who share your position don't do you any favors. Many of the reasons for opposing gay marriage do seem sensible-- it makes sense that a church shouldn't have to conduct any marriages it doesn't want to, and it makes sense that your religion would influence your concept of what is a family. Yet I think that more often than not, these arguments are used not as rationales, but as rationalizations for people who, due to their own homophobia, cannot accept the idea of gays getting married.

I found this pro-Prop 8 ad on Youtube, which I would have had the pleasure of seeing on TV if I lived in California. Listen to the disgusted way in which she spits out her words. Listen to the underlying message: that gay marriage by its very existence serves to corrupt children. It's insidious, and it's bigoted. And it represents the sorts of base fears that dominate the discourse, drowning out reasoned opposition like yours.

I tend to think the state shouldn't involve itself in marriage at all. It really has no business there; marriage has always been an institution of the church, and in a less polarized world, I think most everyone would be content with the compromise that churches (as private organizations) are allowed to grant marriage to whomever they want and everybody else is allowed to apply for a civil union. The thorny issue, though, is that over the years, marriage has come to entail certain small rights: the right to file taxes or insurance claims as a household, the right to have your partner covered by Social Security or Medicare, the right to visit your partner in the hospital if they're sick or dying. These are things that I don't think anyone would want to take away from anyone were the issue of gay marriage not involved. At the moment, these rights come only with marriage, and to prevent any citizen from gaining access to them is discrimination-- unless you provide an alternative that is equal in every way.

It all revolves around rights, the way I see it. Before Proposition 22, before Proposition 8, the law did not specify that marriage was only between a man and a woman-- and therefore, it was not only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court earlier this year was merely affirming the status quo. If the cities and counties of California refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in the past, it was because they interpreted the law to refer only to a man and a woman-- and interpreting the law is something that only the courts are allowed to do. The former status quo, then, was a neutral preservation of rights; Proposition 8 is a removal of rights. And I cannot support the latter under any circumstances.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings or ruffle your bright blue feathers with my post. If I did, I apologize. I'd like to hear your side, though.

[promagnum]

"It's kinda dumb IMO, everyone says "marrage is sacred", I belive Chris Rock said it best when he said, "Marrage isn't sacred, not in America. Home of 'who wants to marry a millionare', 'big fat Fiance', 'Bachelor', 'Bachelorette'. Marrage isn't sacred.""

.
*applauds*





"Proposition 8 is a removal of rights. And I cannot support the latter under any circumstances."

[Azreal Oreo]

Sanctity of marriage..... that's laughable, ESPECIALLY in the state of California. Why do I say that? Look at the celebrities and their marriages. How often does the same person get married? How long do those marriages last? 50-60 years ago, I can understand the argument about the "sanctity of marriage", but nowadays?
If marriage was a sanctified institution, there wouldn't be 2 out of 3 marriages failing in the US. Of course, that could be a made up number on my part, but I do know that it's more than 50%. I agree with what Arbutus said. Let homosexual couples have the same rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage. Marriage could be just between a man and woman, but the benefits of a marriage shouldn't be restricted to man/woman couples.

[promagnum]

Let homosexual couples have the same rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage.

And why should we not call it marriage?

[Narei Mooncatt]

I tend to think the state shouldn't involve itself in marriage at all. It really has no business there; marriage has always been an institution of the church, and in a less polarized world, I think most everyone would be content with the compromise that churches (as private organizations) are allowed to grant marriage to whomever they want and everybody else is allowed to apply for a civil union. The thorny issue, though, is that over the years, marriage has come to entail certain small rights: the right to file taxes or insurance claims as a household, the right to have your partner covered by Social Security or Medicare, the right to visit your partner in the hospital if they're sick or dying. These are things that I don't think anyone would want to take away from anyone were the issue of gay marriage not involved. At the moment, these rights come only with marriage, and to prevent any citizen from gaining access to them is discrimination-- unless you provide an alternative that is equal in every way.

That's almost my view to a "T". A man-woman marraige is a religious ideal, and for governent to decide that's how it is is a way of showing endorcement for some religions over others. Though the arguement can also be made that it's not violating the seperations clause because that revolves around a government mandated religion that we have to participate in even if we don't want to. With this, they are just being unfair.  Anywho, a government only marriage (i.e. just having a Justice of the Peace preside and not a Pastor) isn't bound by religious doctrine. So I say either call them all a marriage, or call them all a civil union (yes, even man-woman marriages), and leave it only up to churches and other places of worship to have their own non-legally binding unions.

[Arbutus]

Let homosexual couples have the same rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage.

And why should we not call it marriage?

For the sake of compromise, mostly. Right now we're calling it "marriage" and it isn't working. Marriage is a religious institution that has always been presided over by the church, and if the government tells the church that they have to perform marriages for certain people when they don't want to do it, well, that's seen as an unwelcome intrusion. So why keep pressing the issue? Let the churches have "marriage," and provide everyone else with a completely equal civil union through the government. We'll be able to make a lot more progress that way.

I also sympathise with the opinions of religious homosexuals, though, for whom a "civil union" might not be enough-- they just want to get married, in the church they belong to, just like everybody else. But honestly, I think that's an issue they need to take up with their church, rather than with the government.

[animagusurreal]

I'm generally a pretty apolitical person, but this is the one issue I care about. I'm very much against Prop. 8, and disappointed  that it passed in my home state of California.

I have yet to hear or read one convincing argument on why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry (or why their marriages should be called something else). To me, marriage means two consenting adults who love each other wanting to share their lives. I'm not gay, nor do I have any interest in getting married, but I believe that those that want to should have the right.

I've seen a lot of front lawn signs that depict an abstract blue family (a mommy, a daddy and two kids) and say "Protect Marriage" - protect it from what? What is supposedly going to happen to straight marriage if gay people are allowed to get married too? What's the alleged threat to that happy little blue family on the sign?

Then there's the TV ads, which use the image of a frightened-looking child and the anecdotal story of one teacher who took his class to a gay wedding (surely this isn't a common occurrence.) If you want a law against teaching about gay marriage in elementary schools, propose a separate law against teaching about gay marriage in elementary schools. You can't ban something solely on the idea that children might possibly get taught about it.

As far as the "marriage has always been the same, why change it now?" argument - straight marriage has changed a great deal, even just over the last few decades. Anyway, "that's just the way things have always been" is never a good reason for anything in and of itself.

And, as far as the churches - if they're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race (as I assume they're not) they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation either. However, if this is going to be a huge stumbling block, then propose a separate law that says that churches can choose not to marry gay couples if they don't want to. Again, you can't ban something solely on the basis of a church not liking it.

I'm basically an agnostic, and if I were to marry another agnostic at City Hall, that would be called marriage, so why should religion "own" the word?

I have friends who, generally for religious reasons, support Prop. 8, so I'm not saying that all people who are for this are "evil" or anything. However I believe the law itself is rooted in fear and bigotry, and is a sad step backwards for civil rights. I believe that, in 20 or 30 years, this country is going to look back on Prop. 8 with the same sense of disbelief and shame with which we now look back on discriminatory laws from the past.

[Feathertail]

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings or ruffle your bright blue feathers with my post. If I did, I apologize. I'd like to hear your side, though.

I feel that children have the right to be raised by both a male and a female parent, who are married, insofar as is possible. I've heard that adoption agencies have pulled out of states where gay marriage is legal because they were being forced to place kids with gay parents, and I don't think it's right to force them to do that. But if we accept that they're "married," then what leg do the agencies have to stand on?

I think that gay people are people, but I don't feel that a homosexual relationship is the same thing as marriage, and I don't feel that it deserves the same societal and legal sanction. The family is not just another relationship between two consenting adults. It's the foundation of a healthy society. All that the argument about "Marriage is no longer sacred" does is point out how far we've fallen. It's not pointing out my hypocrisy, because I'm not in favor of those things either. I feel that insofar as the traditional family is no longer the most fundamental unit of civilization, we have become weak and vulnerable. And I don't think that is a good thing.

This document (LINK) explains how I feel about the family. It's a religious document, but I don't feel that this is about imposing religious views on other people. I feel that it is about preventing a grievous error, and keeping our civilization from celebrating as good an act that is a crime against nature. I've heard of how toxic chemicals can make male seagulls no longer interested in mating with females, and that's how I view this in humans: as a thing that is not just morally wrong because of the people it hurts, but is also unnatural, and akin to sterility. And if we publicly embrace and value that -- which is separate from valuing the people themselves -- then it's like celebrating death.

I thank you for your consideration, Arbutus, and I hope that I haven't hurt any feelings either. *bow*

[Narei Mooncatt]

And, as far as the churches - if they're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race (as I assume they're not) they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation either. However, if this is going to be a huge stumbling block, then propose a separate law that says that churches can choose not to marry gay couples if they don't want to. Again, you can't ban something solely on the basis of a church not liking it.

I doubt you'd have to go that far. A church is a private entity and can choose how they wish to act, just as any other private entity. Them denying gay marriage isn't going to hurt a gay couple in a tangible way (well, it shouldn't but could because of government not recognizing a union and partnership rights, but that's a government thing, not a church thing). And if a gay couple doesn't like what their church is doing, they have the option to seek out one that follows their beliefs better. You can't find a different government when all the states wont recognize a partnership, the only exception being Mass now.

I feel that children have the right to be raised by both a male and a female parent, who are married, insofar as is possible. I've heard that adoption agencies have pulled out of states where gay marriage is legal because they were being forced to place kids with gay parents, and I don't think it's right to force them to do that. But if we accept that they're "married," then what leg do the agencies have to stand on?

You make a very good point, but they may have a leg to stand on. Please understand that my following points are made on my own personal experience and very well accept the possibility that I'm wrong.

Most of the gay people I've known don't hold on to relationships very well. I do have a friend that seems to be in a pretty good one and has been for some time, so I know it can happen. It's just that in general, the ones I've seen have been more unstable than hetero couples. I'm sure we all agree that if you decide you want a kid, your life becomes about the kid, not about what you want. All of your choices need to be made with his/her best interests in mind. I seem to remember hearing of some studies mentioning that kids have faired better with hetero couples than gay couples. I do know I haven't seen any actual evidence saying a child can develop just as well in a gay family, and I do personally believe that kids need both a mother and a father because both parents provide experience with gender roles that you may not get with gay parents but need to be learning. By gender roles, I mean things like women aren't usually physically as strong as men and can't roughhouse with them as much. Men are more straight forward thinkers that aren't as prone to letting emotions cloud their judgement. So far, all I've heard from media sources supporting gay's adopting has been circumstantial and not really meaningful points. Things like saying "it's just another committed couple that care for and love a kid, what's the difference." So unless and until it can be shown that there really is no detrimental effect of having a child growing up in a same sex family, then I believe that adoption agencies (and biological parents for that matter) should be able to opt out of adoption to gays if they wish. Even right now, in a way they do because they can choose to stop providing services (in terms of the agencies) or not adopt out/do private adoption (in terms of biological parents).

[Kwan]

Tachyon, I disagree with you on almost all points made in your last post.

But--- I want to thank you, very much, for being civil.  I doubt that either one of us will make any difference in our thoughts on the issue, but I very much appreciate how you state your convictions without insulting or name-calling.  It's great that we're able to air our opinions without degrading into mud-slinging or evoking Godwin.  

I feel that children have the right to be raised by both a male and a female parent, who are married, insofar as is possible.

This right necessitates more regulated parenting, and could easily lead to taking children away from single-parent situations (including widowed, divorced, etc) & putting them into an already bulging-at-the-seams foster-care industry.  

I feel that children have the right to be raised in a safe, loving environment that encourages & enables the children to develop into a responsible member of society & a well-adjusted adult.  Strait couples --couples of any sort, for that matter-- do not have a monopoly on that, nor does being straight & a couple automatically make ideal parents.

...But if we accept that they're "married," then what leg do the agencies have to stand on?

If the only criteria for rejecting gay couples as unsuitable for child-rearing is who they prefer to have sex with, then I'd say there is no leg to stand on at all.  I'd rather the agencies use such criteria as a history of violent crime, the ability to support the child, etc.  I think it's far worse to make those kids stay in state institutions with no parent at all than deprive them of a stable, caring home with parents who happen to be the same gender.

...that's how I view this in humans: as a thing that is not just morally wrong because of the people it hurts, but is also unnatural, and akin to sterility.

Homo sapiens is hardly on the endangered species list.

I disagree that homosexuality in of itself hurts people.  
Sure, parents choose to feel hurt when their son comes out of the closet, school bullies choose to hurt when they pick on the 'fags.'  Someone being gay didn't automatically MAKE these people react the way they do; these are choices they made in response to knowing someone else's orientation--much as one chooses whether to hurl racial epithets, refuse service to someone with an accent, etc.

I am straight.  I have no intention of ever getting pregnant.  I still have every intention of marrying if the right guy comes along.  And society wouldn't bat an eye.  We'd each automatically receive certain legal rights.  If I get in an accident, my family would not be able to refuse his right to see me in the hospital because they disapproved of our bedroom activities.  If he dies, his family would not be able to refute me as a notarized beneficiary in his will because they didn't think it was right for us to love each other.  

And it really does distress me that many of the people who I care deeply about cannot (currently) get the same automatic legal rights, purely based on their sexual orientation.  I am shamed that I have these rights & they don't.  I'm no better than they are just because I'm straight.  

I have a link to a commentary that I'd love to share but won't put here, due to non-pg words in the response section.  Anyone wanting to see it please PM me.

[Feathertail]

You make a very good point, but they may have a leg to stand on.

*explanation of why it could be said that a male and a female parent really are best regardless of whether or not gays are married*

Then why call a monogamous, perpetual, sexual liason between two adults of the same gender the same thing as a core, child-rearing family unit? That isn't the way that the courts saw it, at any rate, which is why they had to pull out of California IIRC.

But--- I want to thank you, very much, for being civil.  I doubt that either one of us will make any difference in our thoughts on the issue, but I very much appreciate how you state your convictions without insulting or name-calling.  It's great that we're able to air our opinions without degrading into mud-slinging or evoking Godwin.  

Indeed! That's just the kind of thing that Hitler would do. ^.^

This right necessitates more regulated parenting, and could easily lead to taking children away from single-parent situations (including widowed, divorced, etc) & putting them into an already bulging-at-the-seams foster-care industry.

I feel that children have the right to be raised in a safe, loving environment that encourages & enables the children to develop into a responsible member of society & a well-adjusted adult.  Strait couples --couples of any sort, for that matter-- do not have a monopoly on that, nor does being straight & a couple automatically make ideal parents.

I (and apparently Narei) feel that the statistics suggest you are wrong. And I feel that you are using a spurious "slippery slope" argument.

Homo sapiens is hardly on the endangered species list.

The native European population is dying out, because the only people who are having kids there are Muslim immigrants. I'm not against Muslims or immigration, I'm just stating the facts. Many other first world countries are seeing their population growth slow to a crawl, or drop into negative numbers -- the Russian government has begun offering incentives to people to have kids.

Some people see dwindling human populations as a good thing, but I am not one of them. I feel that it's happening because we are practicing sexual deviance, of all kinds, and devaluing the traditional family. I believe that it's only natural that we should start dying out when we do, and that the people who are actually having kids and raising them will replace us.

I disagree that homosexuality in of itself hurts people.  

I feel that the female seagulls suffered for the want of a mate. I believe that the seagull population as a whole suffered as its numbers weren't replenished. In some ways, I don't feel that human beings are so different. And I still feel that children deserve both male and female committed parents.

You're right about people being cruel to gays. They did not bring that on themselves. It's wrong to hurt and devalue other people. And I never meant to suggest that gays are deliberately trying to bring harm to anyone.

And it really does distress me that many of the people who I care deeply about cannot (currently) get the same automatic legal rights, purely based on their sexual orientation.

Because you feel that the only issue at stake isss the relationship between two loving people, I can see why you accept that. Because I do not, please accept that I don't. *bow*

[Kwan]

...A church is a private entity and can choose how they wish to act, just as any other private entity...
<snip>   And if a gay couple doesn't like what their church is doing, they have the option to seek out one that follows their beliefs better.

This may surprise you, but we're in agreement on this.

I do know I haven't seen any actual evidence saying a child can develop just as well in a gay family,

A 1996 study that followed 46 children over 16 years :[/i] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E3DE1339F934A35752C0A960958260

A Canadian Justice Department study that referenced over 100 studies::  http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

A study from 1981 to 1994 with 260 children: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

and I do personally believe that kids need both a mother and a father because both parents provide experience with gender roles that you may not get with gay parents but need to be learning.

By the same token, what's to be done with the children of single straight parents?

[Kwan]

...Because I do not, please accept that I don't. *bow*

I happily agree to disagree with you (and you too, Narai  ), with much good will towards all parties.

.
.
.
Including the seagulls.
::runs before someone throws a pie at her.::

[Acton]

I know... the Theocrats won this round.  I can't believe a state like California would pass a law banning equal rights. 

Still, it's the only low note in an otherwise wonderful day!

I would not say that, I can tell as a Christian the days of the religious right are over now it the center left, social Gospel of Rick Warren. The issue here is the measure had to pull in some secular centrist and liberal votes to pass. If it was just the  religious right teh measure would been trounced by a large margin.

[Epsy]

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings or ruffle your bright blue feathers with my post. If I did, I apologize. I'd like to hear your side, though.

I feel that children have the right to be raised by both a male and a female parent, who are married, insofar as is possible. I've heard that adoption agencies have pulled out of states where gay marriage is legal because they were being forced to place kids with gay parents, and I don't think it's right to force them to do that. But if we accept that they're "married," then what leg do the agencies have to stand on?

I think that gay people are people, but I don't feel that a homosexual relationship is the same thing as marriage, and I don't feel that it deserves the same societal and legal sanction. The family is not just another relationship between two consenting adults. It's the foundation of a healthy society. All that the argument about "Marriage is no longer sacred" does is point out how far we've fallen. It's not pointing out my hypocrisy, because I'm not in favor of those things either. I feel that insofar as the traditional family is no longer the most fundamental unit of civilization, we have become weak and vulnerable. And I don't think that is a good thing.

I'll be sure to contact you and thank you for the warning when society falls apart due to my marrying another man.

[Azreal Oreo]

The native European population is dying out, because the only people who are having kids there are Muslim immigrants. I'm not against Muslims or immigration, I'm just stating the facts. Many other first world countries are seeing their population growth slow to a crawl, or drop into negative numbers -- the Russian government has begun offering incentives to people to have kids.

The American government also offers incentives to people to have kids. It's welfare. Yes, I know not everyone who is on welfare does this, but the majority (around here I know for sure) who are on welfare pop out babies so they can get free money from the government. I have seen many families around here with 5+ children. I personally wish the population of humans on this planet would plummet a lot. There are nearly 7 BILLION people on this planet.

[McMajik]

I personally wish the population of humans on this planet would plummet a lot. There are nearly 7 BILLION people on this planet.

I was just about to say that. Its only a matter of time until the planet can no longer support us, if the population keeps increasing at this rate. What happens when we run out of fossil fuels? Millions of vehicles are made redundant. What do we do with them? nobody knows.

Also, Tachyon, i'm afraid i also disagree with you. I think it would be better for a child to have two loving parents, gay or otherwise, than to be stuck in an orphanage, where many children are looked after by a small number of staff members. Also, while the orphanages bulging at the seams may not be a problem now, if the population continues to increase, it may well become a problem.

Allowing gay marriage would help solve both of those problems.