[Terabitten]

We will never win this debate on religious grounds. Instead, we must make people answer the question “What is the societal purpose of marriage?”

The answer is, of course, to create children that have the best possible chance of success in that society.

This answer explains why we don’t let adult siblings marry, or those deemed mentally incompetent. It’s also the reason behind historical polygamy.

We started winning the abortion debate when we moved from “God says it’s wrong” to “It’s murdering babies.” Same thing with gay marriage.

[highball]

We will never win this debate on religious grounds. Instead, we must make people answer the question “What is the societal purpose of marriage?”

The answer is, of course, to create children that have the best possible chance of success in that society.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to re-frame the debate, but I don't think that's the right line of attack.

Gay people can adopt kids in almost every state in the Union, and gay couples can jointly adopt in more states than they can marry.

We have a lot of kids being raised by parents who are legally prohibited from being married. Kids they didn't all "create" but that they're raising nonetheless.

If we're going to use "stability of home life for kids" as the criteria, we have to explain why the stable home life of the children of gays isn't important.

Unless you think we can change the adoption laws of nearly fifty states, but that seems an even larger task than turning around public opinion on gay marriage.

I'm only bringing this up because I really don't know what the answer is. It's plainly obvious that we need to change the conversation, but I can't figure out how.