Feb 8, 2010, 1:09 PM
Post #19 of 33
Two points. First, "gay marriage" is a misnomer. It is "same gender marriage" which has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with clear language. Otherwise, there is an assumption marriage is only about sex, or that this marriage is something different from other marriages, which may or may not have anything to do with sexuality. Marriage since the beginning of time is just creating relationships between persons not related by blood, and all this does is recognize that such relationships may not be gender specific. Same gender marriages have been around for a number of years (including South Africa, a culture much more homophobic than Latin America) and are not uncommon among people who are not gay, but marrying for perfectly legitimate reasons like security, or to pass on property (as when a person with a terminal illness marries their caretaker) or other reasons. Bravo, extraordinary and precise post. Thank you.
Secondly, "gay adoptions", as in the NYTimes article, are for the most part are of children from prior relationships, or of blood relations (an niece being raised by an uncle or aunt, for example).
At any rate, what any of us think is all rock-n-roll. The only question is whether the Supreme Court upholds the Federal District Assembly's rights under the Constitution to regulate marriage and adoption laws... which it appears more than likely to do.