conservatives continue their attempts to destroy the institution of marriage

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But civil unions aren't even a Moderate Hero position here anymore. Hell they were pushed by far right Republican Mary Franson in 2013.

I am curious what his reading is though I'm sure it's hifly esque semantically nonsense.

LOL, civil unions are such a pathetic cop out. Bush said he supported civil unions in 2004.

[Alcon]

Wulfric?  I'd really like to discuss this.  I PMed you, and I know you've been browsing/posting, so I'm hoping for a response.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

But civil unions aren't even a Moderate Hero position here anymore. Hell they were pushed by far right Republican Mary Franson in 2013.

I am curious what his reading is though I'm sure it's hifly esque semantically nonsense.

LOL, civil unions are such a pathetic cop out. Bush said he supported civil unions in 2004.

Uh, not really...from wiki...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's more of a "I don't like Civil Unions, but I'm not going to force NY/RI/etc. to keep them outlawed" sort of position rather than full on support.

Wulfric?  I'd really like to discuss this.  I PMed you, and I know you've been browsing/posting, so I'm hoping for a response.

All right.

First off, to clarify, my position is that federally, there should be a law allowing civil unions with most but not all marriage rights (what I personally support; so it isn't a 'marriage in all but name'; not a lawyer so don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include), and then individual states should be allowed to expand that all the way up to full gay marriage if they so choose, but they cannot do less than the federal law does.

Now, let's move on to the reasons I wouldn't vote for a federal law mandating gay marriage.

First, and foremost, there are two ways to view marriage. One is to view it almost exclusively as a simple relationship between two people. It's not immoral to hold that view, but I instead take the second viewpoint which is seeing marriage as a relationship with the main purpose of two people procreating, and raising children to be good members of society. The best environment to do that is a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's the only type of marriage that should be sponsored federally. I'm not saying that it's impossible for gay couples to give birth through unconventional means (surrogate mothers, invitro, etc.), or that we should outlaw gay adoptions, or that it's impossible for gay people to raise children well. However, the easiest and the best environment for children to be raised in is one where they have a mother and a father, and that man-woman marriage is the type that the federal government should be giving full sponsorship to.

At the same time, I realize that gay people can't just wake up one morning and decide that they are straight, and therefore we should give some recognition to the relationship of a gay couple through civil unions, so that they can benefit from things like spousal hospital visitation rights, spousal testimonial rights, adoption tax credits, etc. But because it is not the relationship that is the ideal child-rearing environment, the state does not need to and should not be compelled to give full sponsorship to a gay couple like they should to a man-woman couple.

Secondly, the man-woman relationship is deeply rooted in tradition. Not only does every major religion say that man-woman marriage should be the only marriage, but is deeply inserted into society, including today in states where SSM is still illegal, and states willing to keep it illegal should be allowed to do so and preserve the deeply rooted tradition of man-woman marriage.
Each state should be allowed as much time it wants to take a look at the states that allow full gay marriage before deciding it wants to break with tradition and support it. One day, states like Missississippi may allow SSM - however, if they choose to do it, the ones leading the movement should be state legislators and/or state voters, not the federal government or a group of activist judges who have no concern for what the people really want.

Finally, The liberals' strategy on this issue is and has been quite simple:

1. Get a few states to legalize SSM on their own (this step is now complete)
2. Get some judges, including from places that oppose SSM, to legalize it by force (this step is now complete)
3. Scream "precedent! precedent!" at the SCOTUS until they force the entire nation to do things the same way.

The democrats did the same thing when they rammed through the awful mandate of roe vs. wade through, and if we let them do it with this issue, it'll be polygamy a few decades down the road, then incest a few decades after that, and who knows what beyond that. The Supreme Court made the right decision in 1972, as did the 8th circuit in 2006 and the 6th circuit in 2014, and I hope the supreme court still has the courage to stand up to liberals, and not force SSM on  the entire nation, and stop us from hitting the polygamy and incest parts of this terrible slippery slope.

[King]

The main purpose of marriage is not procreation. You can procreate without marriage.

The main purpose of marriage is legal binding for property and  taxation purposes.  Even in ye old times that's what it was for, this whole love and procreate stuff is secondary.

[SWE]

But civil unions aren't even a Moderate Hero position here anymore. Hell they were pushed by far right Republican Mary Franson in 2013.

I am curious what his reading is though I'm sure it's hifly esque semantically nonsense.

LOL, civil unions are such a pathetic cop out. Bush said he supported civil unions in 2004.

Uh, not really...from wiki...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's more of a "I don't like Civil Unions, but I'm not going to force NY/RI/etc. to keep them outlawed" sort of position rather than full on support.

Wulfric?  I'd really like to discuss this.  I PMed you, and I know you've been browsing/posting, so I'm hoping for a response.

All right.

First off, to clarify, my position is that federally, there should be a law allowing civil unions with most but not all marriage rights (what I personally support; so it isn't a 'marriage in all but name'; not a lawyer so don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include), and then individual states should be allowed to expand that all the way up to full gay marriage if they so choose, but they cannot do less than the federal law does.

Now, let's move on to the reasons I wouldn't vote for a federal law mandating gay marriage.

First, and foremost, there are two ways to view marriage. One is to view it almost exclusively as a simple relationship between two people. It's not immoral to hold that view, but I instead take the second viewpoint which is seeing marriage as a relationship with the main purpose of two people procreating, and raising children to be good members of society. The best environment to do that is a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's the only type of marriage that should be sponsored federally. I'm not saying that it's impossible for gay couples to give birth through unconventional means (surrogate mothers, invitro, etc.), or that we should outlaw gay adoptions, or that it's impossible for gay people to raise children well. However, the easiest and the best environment for children to be raised in is one where they have a mother and a father, and that man-woman marriage is the type that the federal government should be giving full sponsorship to.

At the same time, I realize that gay people can't just wake up one morning and decide that they are straight, and therefore we should give some recognition to the relationship of a gay couple through civil unions, so that they can benefit from things like spousal hospital visitation rights, spousal testimonial rights, adoption tax credits, etc. But because it is not the relationship that is the ideal child-rearing environment, the state does not need to and should not be compelled to give full sponsorship to a gay couple like they should to a man-woman couple.

Secondly, the man-woman relationship is deeply rooted in tradition. Not only does every major religion say that man-woman marriage should be the only marriage, but is deeply inserted into society, including today in states where SSM is still illegal, and states willing to keep it illegal should be allowed to do so and preserve the deeply rooted tradition of man-woman marriage.
Each state should be allowed as much time it wants to take a look at the states that allow full gay marriage before deciding it wants to break with tradition and support it. One day, states like Missississippi may allow SSM - however, if they choose to do it, the ones leading the movement should be state legislators and/or state voters, not the federal government or a group of activist judges who have no concern for what the people really want.

Finally, The liberals' strategy on this issue is and has been quite simple:

1. Get a few states to legalize SSM on their own (this step is now complete)
2. Get some judges, including from places that oppose SSM, to legalize it by force (this step is now complete)
3. Scream "precedent! precedent!" at the SCOTUS until they force the entire nation to do things the same way.

The democrats did the same thing when they rammed through the awful mandate of roe vs. wade through, and if we let them do it with this issue, it'll be polygamy a few decades down the road, then incest a few decades after that, and who knows what beyond that. The Supreme Court made the right decision in 1972, as did the 8th circuit in 2006 and the 6th circuit in 2014, and I hope the supreme court still has the courage to stand up to liberals, and not force SSM on  the entire nation, and stop us from hitting the polygamy and incest parts of this terrible slippery slope.

what

[Flake]

Now, let's move on to the reasons I wouldn't vote for a federal law mandating gay marriage.

First, and foremost, there are two ways to view marriage. One is to view it almost exclusively as a simple relationship between two people. It's not immoral to hold that view, but I instead take the second viewpoint which is seeing marriage as a relationship with the main purpose of two people procreating, and raising children to be good members of society. The best environment to do that is a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's the only type of marriage that should be sponsored federally. I'm not saying that it's impossible for gay couples to give birth through unconventional means (surrogate mothers, invitro, etc.), or that we should outlaw gay adoptions, or that it's impossible for gay people to raise children well. However, the easiest and the best environment for children to be raised in is one where they have a mother and a father, and that man-woman marriage is the type that the federal government should be giving full sponsorship to.

At the same time, I realize that gay people can't just wake up one morning and decide that they are straight, and therefore we should give some recognition to the relationship of a gay couple through civil unions, so that they can benefit from things like spousal hospital visitation rights, spousal testimonial rights, adoption tax credits, etc. But because it is not the relationship that is the ideal child-rearing environment, the state does not need to and should not be compelled to give full sponsorship to a gay couple like they should to a man-woman couple.

Secondly, the man-woman relationship is deeply rooted in tradition. Not only does every major religion say that man-woman marriage should be the only marriage, but is deeply inserted into society, including today in states where SSM is still illegal, and states willing to keep it illegal should be allowed to do so and preserve the deeply rooted tradition of man-woman marriage.
Each state should be allowed as much time it wants to take a look at the states that allow full gay marriage before deciding it wants to break with tradition and support it. One day, states like Missississippi may allow SSM - however, if they choose to do it, the ones leading the movement should be state legislators and/or state voters, not the federal government or a group of activist judges who have no concern for what the people really want.

Finally, The liberals' strategy on this issue is and has been quite simple:

1. Get a few states to legalize SSM on their own (this step is now complete)
2. Get some judges, including from places that oppose SSM, to legalize it by force (this step is now complete)
3. Scream "precedent! precedent!" at the SCOTUS until they force the entire nation to do things the same way.

The democrats did the same thing when they rammed through the awful mandate of roe vs. wade through, and if we let them do it with this issue, it'll be polygamy a few decades down the road, then incest a few decades after that, and who knows what beyond that. The Supreme Court made the right decision in 1972, as did the 8th circuit in 2006 and the 6th circuit in 2014, and I hope the supreme court still has the courage to stand up to liberals, and not force SSM on  the entire nation, and stop us from hitting the polygamy and incest parts of this terrible slippery slope.

Whatever shreds of respect I had for you before has been destroyed. You're awful.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First off, to clarify, my position is that federally, there should be a law allowing civil unions with most but not all marriage rights (what I personally support; so it isn't a 'marriage in all but name'; not a lawyer so don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include),

So you'd create an institution and make it unequal solely for the sake of making it unequal? What is the matter with you?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Wulfric c. 1950s/1960s

"Federally, there should be a law allowing blacks most but not all the same rights as whites-not a lawyer so I don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include."

"Racism is deeply rooted in tradition and deeply inserted into society, including today in states where segregation is illegal, and states where it is still legal should be allowed to keep it that way."

(I realize that the analogy isn't a perfect one, but the Moderate Hero silliness for someone who wishes to continue to deny a  segment of Americans equal rights and legal protections applies in both cases).

[JerryArkansas]

OK, the idea that Gay men and Women can't procreate is absurd.  Have you ever heard of Surrogate mothers.  Many gay men are using them to have children of there own.  Gay women are using sperm banks.  So you biggest argument has a huge hole in it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[bedstuy]

First, and foremost, there are two ways to view marriage. One is to view it almost exclusively as a simple relationship between two people. It's not immoral to hold that view, but I instead take the second viewpoint which is seeing marriage as a relationship with the main purpose of two people procreating, and raising children to be good members of society. The best environment to do that is a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's the only type of marriage that should be sponsored federally. I'm not saying that it's impossible for gay couples to give birth through unconventional means (surrogate mothers, invitro, etc.), or that we should outlaw gay adoptions, or that it's impossible for gay people to raise children well. However, the easiest and the best environment for children to be raised in is one where they have a mother and a father, and that man-woman marriage is the type that the federal government should be giving full sponsorship to.

That's illogical and both under and over inclusive. 

It's illogical because recognition of gay marriage has no effect, positive or negative on the number of children raised by two opposite sex parents.  Regardless of whether that environment is the best, and we don't have strong data to say it is, there is no relationship between that and homosexual people getting married.  Do you think that taking away people's rights means that there will be an incentive to become straight? Do you think there will be a disincentive for gay people to have kids because the government will be informing them about their inferior parenting abilities through taking away their civil rights?  That seems crazy and if you can't answer that question, your whole argument is garbage.

That idea creates an over inclusive definition as well because we allow infertile couples to get married and we don't invalidate their marriages after they become infertile.  There's no principled reason to give that right to infertile couples and those who don't intend to procreate, and not give that right to gay couples.

It's also under inclusive from the premise of child environment maximization.  We already have thousands of children with same-sex parents.  If you think two married parents are better than being an out of wedlock child, why exclude those children from the beneficial arrangement of marriage? 

The other thing is that there's no evidence or data here.  If you aren't being remotely logical and you have no evidence, you lose 14th Amendment cases which require a showing of "rational basis."  This isn't some whacko left wing activism, if it was, SSM wouldn't be winning even among conservative judges.  This is just a case where the opponents of SSM can't find a rational basis argument.   

At the same time, I realize that gay people can't just wake up one morning and decide that they are straight, and therefore we should give some recognition to the relationship of a gay couple through civil unions, so that they can benefit from things like spousal hospital visitation rights, spousal testimonial rights, adoption tax credits, etc. But because it is not the relationship that is the ideal child-rearing environment, the state does not need to and should not be compelled to give full sponsorship to a gay couple like they should to a man-woman couple.

You're just sort of asserting that I guess.  It's totally arbitrary though so it's a worthless argument.

Secondly, the man-woman relationship is deeply rooted in tradition. Not only does every major religion say that man-woman marriage should be the only marriage, but is deeply inserted into society, including today in states where SSM is still illegal, and states willing to keep it illegal should be allowed to do so and preserve the deeply rooted tradition of man-woman marriage.
Each state should be allowed as much time it wants to take a look at the states that allow full gay marriage before deciding it wants to break with tradition and support it. One day, states like Missississippi may allow SSM - however, if they choose to do it, the ones leading the movement should be state legislators and/or state voters, not the federal government or a group of activist judges who have no concern for what the people really want.

Sometimes we don't credit what the people want when what they want is unconstitutional.  People in Mississippi might want their state religion to be Christianity, but they can't because that goes against the Constitution. 

As for the tradition point, we've changed marital traditions before.  We used to have dowry and dower.  We used to treat women as basically property of men who were exchanged in a marriage transaction.  We used to outlaw interracial marriage.  We used to make divorce very difficult.  We changed those things and  many of those traditional practices are unconstitutional like barring interracial marriage and treating women as property.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Finally, The liberals' strategy on this issue is and has been quite simple:

1. Get a few states to legalize SSM on their own (this step is now complete)
2. Get some judges, including from places that oppose SSM, to legalize it by force (this step is now complete)
3. Scream "precedent! precedent!" at the SCOTUS until they force the entire nation to do things the same way.

The liberal strategy on this has been quite clear: Attain equal rights (of which SSM is a facet) for LBGT citizens, by any means possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You realize that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, right? Democrats, and Americans at large, do not support incest and polygamy in the present. Maybe 50 years from now the social consensus will change for those things to be acceptable, but there is not some secret plan to make it happen.

[Alcon]

Wulfric,

I'm going to start off by saying I don't really care about your position on the federalism issue.  It's your personal opposition to same-sex marriage that I have a problem with.

bedstuy's response is pretty much identical to what I would have posted.  I'm sorry, but to be blunt, your argument is terrible.  I really rarely say arguments are meritless, but this one is.  You're narrowing the purpose of incentivizing marriage solely to incentivizing procreation, which is silly, because marriage also has other social benefits.  The rest of your argument is equally as flawed.

bedstuy already pointed out the problems with the "ideal world" argument, but let me add on to it.  Ignoring the fact that being raised in a same-sex household doesn't appear to be meaningfully sub-optimal*, your argument makes no sense, dude. First off, the question isn't whether you're incentivizing an ideal circumstance, but whether you're incentivizing circumstances that are better than would currently exist.  Here's an example: it isn't an ideal circumstance to grow up poor.  Does that mean we should ban marriage for the poor?  Of course not.  It makes no sense.  The poor are going to have children, and all else being equal, it would be better if those children were provided the stability and financial benefits of the marital institution!

You might say, in that case, "but by not incentivizing same-sex marriage, fewer gay people might adopt children, producing fewer sub-optimal outcomes."  First off, the evidence does not indicate that children adopted by same-sex couples have suboptimal outcomes at all, so this argument fails on face.  Beyond that, think about the implications of your argument.  Children of mixed-race couples face more difficulties than white children.  The poor, like I said above, have much worse outcomes.  Being short is hard, too, and it's genetically inherited, so having short parents is sub-optimal.  There are tons of demographic variables that actually do affect outcomes, unlike same-sex parentage.

Would you ever consider restricting those groups from marriage?  Probably not.  I imagine those strike you as totally absurd.  Maybe they strike you as so absurd you just want to laugh them off.

Now ask yourself why they're absurd.

* Is it because it seems completely horrible and screwed-up to deny people access to a social institution based on broad, weak demographic correlations?

* Is it because you think the idea of denying a short person marriage simply because their children might have a higher-than-average chance of being teased, seems to cheapen the lives and love of both the couple, and the children?

* Is it because you realize that, even when it comes to sub-optimal situations (like poverty), denying the stability of the marital institution probably makes things worse?

* If it's not those things, what is it?

Now, does a single one of those absurdities not apply to your opposition to same-sex marriage?  As far as I can tell, they all apply.  If anything, your opposition to same-sex marriage makes less sense.  It makes less sense because the literature doesn't even show inferior outcomes for children of same-sex couples.  It makes sense because incentivizing stability in gay couples is at least as important as doing so with heterosexual couples.  It makes less sense because same-sex parents are much likelier to adopt, and adoption is probably one of the best ways of preventing terrible outcomes for children.  Seriously, dude, do you really think this makes any sense?

I'm rarely this dismissive toward positions, but this argument against same-sex marriage is common, but really, really paper-thin.  I believe you think of this argument as moderate and tolerant.  But it's not.  When you think about it critically, it makes no sense at all.  Please spend less time bothering with defensiveness -- people are jerks, but whatever -- and reconsider this position.  You're a smart guy, and you must realize that a lot of what you're arguing doesn't really hold up.

* - Not a surprise, since same-sex couples actually have to want to have a child.  Plenty of heterosexual couples have them accidentally, producing sub-optimal outcomes all the time.    This is another reason why your argument

[SteveRogers]

The above posters did an excellent job demolishing your "Marriage is for procreation" argument against gay marriage (as have most state and federal judges that have examined the issue), so I won't add a redundant post picking that apart.

I did want to touch on this part though, because I think it's a bit intellectually dishonest:

All right.

First off, to clarify, my position is that federally, there should be a law allowing civil unions with most but not all marriage rights (what I personally support; so it isn't a 'marriage in all but name'; not a lawyer so don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include), and then individual states should be allowed to expand that all the way up to full gay marriage if they so choose, but they cannot do less than the federal law does.

Two things:

1) This policy outcome wouldn't involve any less of the intervention from "activist judges" that you decry in your argument against gay marriage. States like Texas have state constitutions that flat out forbid recognizing civil unions in any capacity. The federal government could establish its own regime of federal civil union licenses for things like filing federal income taxes and federal benefits, but you can't pass a law forcing Texas to grant gay couples hospital visitation rights without a federal court ruling backing it up.

2) You say you are opposed to the federal government forcing states to grant the full slate of marriage rights to gay couples, but you would support the federal government passing a law granting some marriage rights to gay couples, and yet you can't actually identify any specific marriage rights that you oppose requiring the states to provide to gay couples. Did I get that right? What's the point? If you don't even care from a policy perspective which rights states are required to provide equal access to, then your support for civil unions as opposed to marriage equality amounts to a stance of "Grant gay couples some rights, but then knock them down a peg (Somehow. Don't care how)." So the only States' Right that you're standing up for in the end is the right of the state to declare that they don't like gay couples as much as straight couples.

[Badger]

When Wulfric started this debate with indignantly asserting his support for interracial marriage, you had to know it would go downhill fast from there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The whole bit about that children need parents of both genders to raise them makes little sense. Even if you believe that, it has little to do with the issue.

Let's imagine a bisexual woman who gets pregnant from a man, gives birth to a baby, and then later seperates from the father. She later gets with a lesbian, and they raise her son or daughter together. Now in what way does the child benefit from them being denied a marriage?

[Alcon]

The whole bit about that children need parents of both genders to raise them makes little sense. Even if you believe that, it has little to do with the issue.

Let's imagine a bisexual woman who gets pregnant from a man, gives birth to a baby, and then later seperates from the father. She later gets with a lesbian, and they raise her son or daughter together. Now in what way does the child benefit from them being denied a marriage?

Right, weird example aside (you do know that convincing conservatives probably should involve using less weird examples? ), you're right.  How many situations fall into one of these two categories?

1. The marriage incentive alone is enough to push someone to decide to have a child.

Or,

2. A child is better-off living with a family where the marriage incentive is absent, than where it is present.

I imagine that #1 is really, really rare.  Prohibiting gay marriage probably results in gay people feeling crappier about themselves, which may result in fewer long-term gay relationships and a little less child-rearing.  The idea that this is an aggregate good is just absurd and mean-spirited.  You basically have to make people feel bad and rejected enough to discourage them from raising kids...I mean, wtf?

Obviously, the idea that gay people will choose heterosexual relationships instead, and those will have better outcomes, is so ridiculous I don't even need to address it.

I think, if you believe that marriage is a useful incentive, #2 almost never happens, at least compared to the opposite of #2.  Codified financial and social stability rarely worsens outcome.

The whole "we should only incentivize the best situations" argument is so ridiculous.  The best situations don't benefit from, or require, incentives.  Moreover, if government policy can improve outcomes, without negating that by creating new sub-optimal outcomes, it should.

And that's even setting aside the fact that kids adopted/raised by gay parents don't even have below-average outcomes.

And it's putting aside the fact that prohibiting gay marriage is ridiculously mean-spirited, and we have never ever ever demanded 10% of the scrutiny of heterosexuals that we demand of gays.

Am I beating a dead horse at this point?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wanted an example that was completely seperated from the issues of gay adoption and surrogacy as well. But I don't see how it's weird, you should know that gay couples where one has a biological child are not tha uncommon. In fact I know of a lesbian couple with a son from Ingress who are the exact scenario I said above (even though I wasn't thinking of them at the time.)

[Murica!]

Why the hell does marriage still exist? It's the bloody 21st century!

[HAnnA MArin County]

If the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then that means that elderly heterosexual people, infertile/sterile heterosexuals couples shouldn't be allowed to wed since they are unable to have children. That's a stupid argument to make. Marriage is about love, yes, but you can have love without children. There are plenty of heterosexual married couples without children and they are doing just fine (my sister is one of them).

[7,052,770]

So Jews, Episcopals, Lutherans, etc., aren't major religions?

[Alcon]

I wanted an example that was completely seperated from the issues of gay adoption and surrogacy as well. But I don't see how it's weird, you should know that gay couples where one has a biological child are not tha uncommon. In fact I know of a lesbian couple with a son from Ingress who are the exact scenario I said above (even though I wasn't thinking of them at the time.)

I was just playing.  I meant that conservatives would probably be put off by an example involving an out-of-wedlock birth to a sexually active bisexual.  That, plus the cartoon you posted earlier, probably would weird out the average swing voter on this issue

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm a little weirded out by that cartoon, more the aesthetic of it than the sentiment, and I'm trans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The cartoons were really just a "loltumblr" thing.

I wanted an example that was completely seperated from the issues of gay adoption and surrogacy as well. But I don't see how it's weird, you should know that gay couples where one has a biological child are not tha uncommon. In fact I know of a lesbian couple with a son from Ingress who are the exact scenario I said above (even though I wasn't thinking of them at the time.)

I was just playing.  I meant that conservatives would probably be put off by an example involving an out-of-wedlock birth to a sexually active bisexual.  That, plus the cartoon you posted earlier, probably would weird out the average swing voter on this issue

But that's a silly and childish attitude. It's sort of head in the sand, since we all know such out of wedlock births happen all the time (hell we could just make the original couple married and then divorced to resolve that issue, since divorce is pretty well accepted now.) They happen with plenty of purely heterosexual people too, but no one would throw a fit about her then marrying a different man in that scenario. But the ultimate question here is: How does the child benefit from their mother being able to marry a man but not another woman?

[Alcon]

I agree it's dumb, but hey that's swing voters.  They're the worst!