Translation: you don’t like the point nor its implication, but you can’t argue with the logic. Gotcha.
Criticizing your beliefs isn’t a personal insult.
Both female and male points of view are present.
Do you have a good suggestion, without violating anyone, to get children out of gay homes and into homes with their natural mother and father? I can’t think of one.
I said natural nuclear families, meaning a straight marriage, not simply “marriages” inclusive of gays. I never said a marriage is optimum if the marriage partners are gays. I have said a gay family is better than nothing, but that doesn’t mean we should encourage them.
What makes you assume that the homosexuals in question aren’t their biological parents?
Okay, I’ll play. Your analogy is that allowing the not-as-tall into the club dilutes its value to the tallest. But that is only true if tallness is a virtue, and the not as tall are not as virtuous, right? And the “dilution” part is only true if the tallest people generally consider tallness to be a virtue, right?
Then, if you’re serious about the analogy, it follows that you think straightness is a virtue, that the straight consider it one, and that they consider their straightness to be of less value if the not-straight are allowed equal protection. The first part implies the judgment about your values that you continue to deny, and the second part has not been borne out by experience anywhere.
When I was young I had an anything goes attitude about sex. I even tried gay sex once. Didn’t care for it. As I gained more experience, my attitudes changed. All my friends from my youth also changed many of their attitudes over years of no contact with them. Experience brings wisdom, and experience comes with age.
I have heard many times that the old fogies will die off and the kids will get there way on other issues. In the seventies they said in ten years pot would be legal, but it isn’t, recreationally, which is what they meant.
What history, specifically, is it you are looking at?
But that has no effect on the welfare of the children. The study you’ve been dismissing this whole thread does a pretty good job of debunking that, even if it doesn’t specifically compare gay parents to married parents.
In most gay families, one of the parents is the natural mother or father.
But shouldn’t we do everything we can to aid them, if only for the sake of their kids? Do you think publicly debating the worthiness of a kids parents helps the kid, or harms him? Especially if, as you’ve conceded above, the end result of the debate is to leave the kid with those parents regardless of the outcome? How do you think this harm
Pot is readily available to anyone, anywhere, and in many places possession isn’t even a misdemeanor. The big picture is that they were right.
Regarding the history of recognizing equal rights for gays, you only have to go back less than a decade to find it essentially nowhere. Now take a look.
While you might think this qualifies as being newsworthy, it has nothing to do SSM. As much as you want it to be. Blacks and whites have been joining to have babies and start families for a time much longer than the U.S. has been around. Too bad you can’t make that same statement about SS couples. Sorry.
In the spirit of the blind squirrel, you have hit on a good argument for SSM. I commend you on your “skill”.
My feeling is that the restriction is not necessary. Even without it, people equate marriage with the raising of children; as the ideal situation in which to raise our next generations. While, like David42, I am quite in favor of gays adopting, I don’t view this as an ideal that we should attempt to foster, especially if the idea is to equate it with traditional marriages.
Indeed; and in the case of those that aren’t, many of these children are being adopted, not out of the loving, caring “natural nuclear family” that David seems to be fantasizing about, but out of foster care. I don’t believe you will find a study in the world proving that being raised by loving adoptive parents leads to worse outcomes than being raised in the foster system.
This is all complete nonsense, anyway. If you think that society has a vested interest in making sure that children are raised by their biological opposite-sex parents, then pass a law making divorce illegal. We don’t make people pass a test before they have kids, and so in addition to the David’s Ward and June Cleaver model, there are kids out there being raised by drug addicts, by abusive parents, by neglectful parents, etc. Are we going to discourage them from getting married because they might have kids and those kids might have a subpar outcome? No? Then why are we restricting that right from gay people? Perhaps because a certain segment of the population finds homosexuality “icky” in a way that drug dealing and child abuse is not.
Your argument would be better if you left out the equal protection. It indulges the circular reasoning fallacy.
The analogy fails however, unless it is shown government has a non-arbitrary reason to promote tall people. If the argument considers government support anyway. If it does not then it is apt to illustrate the dilution of concepts.
Quelle surprise.
Even though it is utterly impossible for me to get pregnant as a man?
No, it recognizes the frickin’ Constitution. :rolleyes:
But it doesn’t. As you know.
that’s getting into the ad hominem area I complained of. Please desist implications I am a closet homosexual.
Yes. The right does not depend on your physical ability to take advantage of it or not. If genetic engineering or surgical modification at some point permitted a man to get pregnant, that man would have the right to an abortion.
It’s interesting that you would think I was implying that. I could easily have meant that it was no surprise that you didn’t enjoy gay sex, as you earlier claimed to find it “icky”.
The fact that the situation will never arise in which you can exercise that right does not mean that you do not have that right. The *reason *the situation will never arise, though, is derived from immutable physical reality. That fact that many gays cannot get married is derived only from the very-mutable actions and attitudes of their fellow humans. Perhaps you don’t see the difference.
So, again, please explain your point.
The Constitution added equal protection in the context first and foremost of race.
Equal protection is about people who are the same getting treated differently for an issue that does not address the activity denied.
Gays would have to be able to conceive children the same as straights, with no one else’s help, for an equal protection violation to arise.
The denial is based on the issue.
Denying people marriage for having green hair would be an equal protection violation, because green hair has nothing to do with conceiving and raising children.
So you think that infertile people or post-menopausal women should be denied the right to marriage, then?