Here's the previous thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...ould-awarded-homosexual-couples-part-3-a.html Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about children being brought into this world with the specific intent, before they are even born, of depriving them of both a mother and father, and one of their biological parents. I didn't claim the State would be encouraging adoptions, I said homosexual parenting arrangements. Please try to follow me here. I'm not talking about homosexuals adopting children.
I'm arguing that it's irresponsible to create a child with the deliberate intent of depriving him of both a mother and father and/or his biological parents. And it would be equally irresponsible and selfish for a single woman to make that choice. It isn't my canard. Marriage, historically, has never been defined as anything other than man and woman. If you don't think your marriage has any more value than a homosexual pairing, you're welcome to view it that way. I think the fact that it offers the ideal relationship in which to raise any children you may have, makes it more valuable to society. Well, my choice, my preference, is that the State not encourage relationships that would put more children in these circumstances. So homosexual males are (possibly) biologically less inclined to want children than heterosexual males? Please explain, if you would. And once again, you mention the same irrelevant point. I never claimed children are a requirement. No, I'm focusing on the topic, and you're bringing up a host of other issues(health care, education costs...) that have nothing to do with it. And you didn't offer an answer to the question I posed earlier. Do you think we should allow siblings and other close family members to marry?
