Good post. Makes sense to me.screw ideology, let's think about what's real here:
1. we have more kids to adopt than families to adopt them. expanding the adoptive parent pool is going to provide more people with loving families and the economical support to succeed in life and have a higher chance of becoming contributing members of society. research has shown positive results for the child's mental health, and even if you have your doubts, i have yet to have seen anyone to make any reasonable argument that temporary fostercare or outright not being adopted is a better alternative.
2. what has being significant to the mental health of the child, however, is that the parents are indeed married, and right now marriage is crumbling, people are doing it less and less and divorce rates aren't looking good, because with marriage, divorce and custody laws throughout the western world being an ill-adapted fucking mess that somehow seemingly discriminates against everyone one way or another, it is no longer clear to people that marriage is a good idea. legalizing gay marriage & forcing courts to go into trials where sexual discrimination is no longer a factor, creating new precedents and reevaluating old ones, is probably the best thing one can do to save the institution of marriage from kicking itself in the ass. yes, the legal consequences & cultural understanding of marriage will change over time, and look around you - it isn't doing so well, it fucking needs changing.
as long as is a government institution, anything it does would be meddling - not allowing gay marriage is also meddling, allowing it is meddling, recognizing it for tax cuts, immigration policies, adoption policies, healthcare benefits... all of that is meddling. you can't just pick a side that wants to force things one way and complain that forcing it another way is is wrong simply because it is forceful, beyond the hypocrisy, that's like two bloody drunks arguing who should drive. if anything, lifting the constraints of marriage actually allow more freedom for the individual, which reduces legal enforcement.
can you imagine the savings on rocket fuel?
really though - nature is the nature of things - nature is what nature does. if it wasn't natural it wouldn't be happening and this discussion wouldn't exist. its not really that it's unnatural, it's just that it makes people uncomfortable. and you know what the guy who got mugged by someone because that someone didn't have a supporting family to do better in life thinks about your discomfort? or the child whose father left because that father had no role model of family? well, probably nothing because it's not an obvious connection, but frankly one got hurt more than the other.
on utility basis alone, gay couples are useful to us as a society, and enough of them want to be used to make this an issue making it a win win situation, and we are trying to stop that because it makes people feel uncomfortable? if you want to illegalize discomfort how about starting with something a bit more substantial, like itchy t-shirt tags and ikea furniture.