You can't tell me that children raised by a homosexual couple won't have a better chance that children raised by some dysfunction single mother.
Why are those the only two options?
Do you think there are no dysfunctional homosexual unions that just might want a 'baby boy' of about 6 or 7 to 'raise?'
Perhaps at this moment, there are few of those kinds of unions - but now that homosexual relations are the 'cool' thing to do, don't you think that MANY pedophiles will suddenly find a 'loving' partner to 'marry?'
There is nothing wrong with civil unions. There is nothing natural about two homosexuals raising children.
WHY cannot the creativity of homosexuals (that is what I have heard they are really good at) be used to come up with an alternate word to 'marriage?' - I can think of a few myself.
We could call their civil unions "magnolias" or "paradise" or "synchronism" or thousands of other words - why do they want to be called "married?"
Marriage is as different from homosexual unions as is magnolia.
Marriage traditionally means the creation of a family unit for the purpose of procreation, and the protection of that special assignment is the basis of all civilization everywhere in the world.
Homosexual attraction and unions are not a new phenomenon. It has coexisted with marriage for many thousands of years.
It is only recently, with the degradation of all societal norms as a whole, that such a union has been celebrated as an 'equal' status as a marriage.
Equating these two institutions is nothing more than another assault on the degradation of the family unit. The more the family can be destroyed, the more dysfunctional children --> adults will be created.
And to what end? So homosexuals can "feel better" about their living arrangements?
I say bull shite - and I don't care to hear about the fact that OTHER aspects of a traditional marriage are also falling apart. Just because marriage is under attack from other enemies doesn't mean we should just surrender to the latest attack.
There will be much destruction of children's futures - and therefore society's - when they are routinely placed into homosexual relationships just to appear 'tolerant' of some group's DESIRES.
Try to convince me of the origin of some 'right' for two men to raise a child. Nature itself has endowed that right to heterosexual unions. And the fact that some accommodations have to be made for orphans or abuse victims doesn't mean that a universal right exists for just ANYONE to take possession of a child's future.