Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

What does that have to do with refusing civil union and/or mariage to gay couples?

Children raised by gay couples are no more "at risk" than children raised by heterosexual couples. . .and probably less at risk than children raised by single parents!

 

Riiight. Then what of the children being raised by the system? Would they not be better off being adopted and raised by a loving family?

Of course they're better off being passed around foster families than being raised by gays right?

 

They dont marry them, they merely sodomize them.

 

Nothing special about being gay that uniquely qualifies them for the raising of children. Any two people can raise a child. Probably more children being raised right now by a single mother and single grandmother living together to raise the children, than have EVER been raised by gay couples. Nothing would justify such special treatment for gays, for no other reason than the fact that they are gay.

 

That is a rather silly argument to justify discriminating against other human beings.

 

Thats because it was an argument against discriminating between a gay couple and a couple made up of a mother and grandmother raising children together

 

nonsequitor. nobody has asked for special treatment for gays.

 

If marriage is only about children, than it is time to redefine marriage.

Modern medical science and social trends are making that whole concept of "traditional" family obsolete. Families break apart and merge with other families in a kind of "yours, mine and ours". A woman does not have even have to engage in sex to conceive a child much less have a partner.

Any laws that determine paternity because the man was married to the woman when she conceived are outdated since modern genetics makes them unnecessary.

Marriage has evolved through out history and it is still evolving. Same-sex marriage is going to happen. It is not a matter of "if" but "when". Those of us who support it want it to happen sooner than later because so many people's happiness is at stake.

Those who continue to rail against same-sex marriage are just trying to hold back a flood using only a teaspoon and a sieve.

 

You would be right...except for the fact that gays actually have to WANT a child. They don't just accidentally have children like many heterosexuals. They actually have to put some effort into becoming parents.

 

Yeah, thats the goal. The elimination of any preference for moms and dads raising the chikdren they have created together. Because it offends the gays who cant participate.

 

Actually, the majority of gay couples with children are raisng children born to one of the partners previous heterosexual relationships. And ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS other than a heterosexual couple would have to WANT a child. Nothing special about being gay that would warrant such special treatment.

 

so you would have no problems with other people telling you that you could screw your wife, but never marry her because ... well ... it just isn't suitable that you marry?

(you need to remember that not all marriages produce children)

 

so you would also argue that hetero couples who do not produce children should also be denied the same rights as other hetero couples?

 

in which case, children should probably be removed from a lot of hetero parents.

 

On what grounds?

Procreation?

Oh snap.

 

well, marriage in its current state has already eliminated any preference for moms and dads raising the childen they created together, since the majority of marriages end in divorce.

 

Is there really any point?

Which isn at all suprising since gay couples cant procreate.

 

Thats what I asked and you now seek to avoid.

 

So does this mean you will go a post without contradicting yourself?

 

Ah! So when you say "marry the person they love" what you really meant was marry the person they screw. Special treatment for those couples who screw. What possible justification could there be for treating couples who screw, differentl from those who do not, OTHER than the potential of procreation? More stable households made up of intergenerational families who do not screw each other than there are stable households made up of a gay couple.

 

Afraid I dont know what you are babbling on about now. Make a relevant point if you can.

 

Marriage laws continue after divorce to ensure the well being of the children and the mother of the children.

 

Majority of births are to heterosexual couples who had no intent of producing children. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of children resulting from unplanned pregnancies as they do the children resulting from planned pregnancies. You could, without offending the constitution, force people seeking marriage to provide proof that they are capable of procreating and agree to be obligated to do so. But a lot fewer heterosexual couples would likey seek marriage. More children would be born to single mothers. Such a requirement would be detrimental to the purpose.

 

this doesn't contradict a thing I said.