Assume for a moment that "marriage" becomes a sanctified religious union between one man and one woman for the purpose of having biological children and raising them under the watchful eye of God, and that a "civil union" comes into existence for people who want to be joined outside of the sanctity of the church that allows for legal rights of visitation, inheritance, and so on. Separate, but equal.
Should a civilly joined gay couple be allowed to adopt a child?
Okay, I know that most of you reading this are snorting and indignantly saying "of course". But just as an experiment, I want you to try and come up with a compelling reason why they shouldn't be.
To what end?
I find that a lot of people, both liberal and conservative, tend to lock into a set of beliefs about "the other side" that are really sort of cartoonish and absurd. Very very few people are actually that loony, and most of the ones that you're familiar with tend to be so because it's their persona in the media. They get a lot of attention, money, and power from it.
But when you hold a political opinion so strongly that you can't see the other side in a realistic light and actually understand the validity of what they are saying, you lose some of your humanity in the process.
Break the mold. Challenge your beliefs.
(Edit: this comes from the document released by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family:)
"The causes are diverse but the 'eclipse' of God, creator of man, is at the root of the profound current crisis concerning the truth about man, about human procreation and the family."
It said the family was under attack around the world, even in traditionally Christian cultures, by what it called "radical currents" proposing new family models.
It listed these threats as homosexual marriages, giving gay couples equal legal recognition as married heterosexuals, lesbians demanding the right to bear children through artificial insemination and gays who want to adopt children.