The debate of whether a state should allow a gay couple to marry is and has been a contentious subject in the United States. From a scientific point, we can see why this issue has come to light. It was less than 40 years ago that the American Psychiatric Association considered the desire to spend ones life with a person of the same gender a mental disorder. With that logic, of course the government could not support a loving union that was being deemed by medicine as diseased. Since then, however, the American Psychiatric Association has come to a different understanding, that "same-sex sexual and romantic attractions are normal variations of human sexuality" (text 441). With this shift in understanding, it is no wonder that a large population in our Country would also like a shift in policy.
Now, to put it as stated above is far too simple. This is not just a medical issue. You have arguments based on the religious connotations of marriage, the implication on divergent family structures, religious objections, and lets just be honest plain old hatefulness.
Now, I come into this debate biased. I am a queer woman, I almost married another woman, I worked on staff on the Ref I campaign back in Colorado (the domestic partnership referendum). I know the issue like the back of my hand. But reading this textbook is nice, because it reminds me of the scientific claus behind the argument. That not only does one battle religion and homophobia, one also battles the fact that this was once demonized by APA. Though now an outlier, it is science that will hopefully help in policy questions like these.
I understand studying the brain, human behavior, but quantifying how humans love still remarks me. Yet we need it, if we are ever going to get fair treatment in Minnesota.