LOL, now you are grasping at straws. Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that birthrates among immigrants are highest, so it would follow that the US government should be increasing immigration to boost the population. Teen pregnancies are up in the areas of the country which don’t teach birth control, so I guess the government is on the right track by funding those abstinence only programs. Heck, maybe they should ban birth control altogether. I fail to see how a few percent of the population marrying each other would have anywhere near the impact of those measures.
No I do not. If you recall I said something about privacy and being able to see this on the face of things without any prying.
It may logically flow, or you may merely think it does, but it isn’t what I said.
If you can conceive of a test for straight couples that doesn’t violate privacy, I might consider adopting that view.
that reason would be the destruction of the concept of marriage as we currently understand it.
Oh, it does logically flow, I assure you. So I’ll ask again: Since you don’t support restricting marriage to only those people who can conceive a child together naturally, what are your grounds for restricting marriage from gay people?
Competing government interests do not nullify other interests. Sometimes it is very difficult to make it all work as a seamless whole.
There is a difference between an immigrant and someone here illegally. If they aren’t here legally, we do not have a legitimate interest in increasing the numbers of the lawless.
Defense is the number one most overwhelming reason to even have a government to begin with, and you simply dismiss it as a joke.
I believe I answered that in my last post to you. Is it funny to ask me to repeat myself?
How enlightening. I should have thought of that myself. Silly me.
Actually, wouldn’t she just be a person with wheels?
Cite for this happening, please. I’m having trouble imagining a gay couple adopting a child when they don’t want one just so other gay couples can adopt other children. And then there’s the question of why an adoption agency would sign off on such a thing.
:rolleyes: Yes. I think they should be able to have their marriages recognized and adopt children under the same rules as straight people.
I haven’t manipulated a word of what you said.
This is more of a dodge than a Ford. A marriage between two gay men does not affect your marriage to a woman.
It’s not, though. Gays have children all the time, and there’s no reason to treat them differently.
And that’s why nobody opposed those requests. Hmm, wait a minute…
They are equal, and the data does not support your point that it’s a fantasy. What’s traditional doesn’t concern me. Marriage has changed before and now it’s changed again.
And you’re wrong.
Your relationship isn’t special. Any two idiots who forget a condom can reproduce and get married. There’s no reason for society to treat a marriage between a man and a woman as more special than a marriage between two men or two women.
Do you really see no difference in how a traditional married OS couple can have children (and have been having them all this time) And the way a gay couple “can have children”? Do you really acknowledge zero difference?
Why is it so hard to accept that on the one hand gays are capable of the emotional ties as straight couples and push to have society recognize that fully, and on the other hand accept that SS relationships and OS relationship are not equivalent when it comes to children? It seems that you’re ignoring some blatantly obvious differences, that you’re willing to contort reality.
“I assure you” is an appeal to your personal authority and a debate no-no unless you are in fact an authority on a relevant subject. Are you?
Sorry, I missed the last sentence.
Please provide your reasons for believing that “the destruction of the current concept of marriage” will cause societal harm. If you like, you can use data from Canada, as they’ve had legalized same-sex marriage for six years now. Or Sweden, legal for two years. Or Spain, six years just like Canada. Or the Netherlands, ten whole years there. You should be able to get pretty good data from the Netherlands on how the fabric of their society has crumbled due to same-sex marriage having been legalized for an entire decade.
What’s to acknowledge? Straight couples use surrogates all the time and we don’t downgrade their marriages as a result.
How? Straight couples can have children via surrogates and adoption. Gay people can have children through sex with a person of the opposite gender, through adoption, and through surrogacy. Both can choose to be childless. None of these methods are unique to same-sex or opposite-sex marriage, and there’s no reason to treat them differently. One romantic partnership is as good as another.
I have straight married friends that went to Russia to adopt their children; I have gay friends (unmarried, as they are in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage) that adopted their children out of the foster system. I do not recognize any significant difference between these two perfectly valid methods of having children, no. And I do not believe that the theoretical ability of a couple to conceive a child naturally has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of their marriage or lack thereof.
Not special but different.
Gay guys who forget condoms for gay sex have been popping babies out for a long time, right?
I think most of us finished the fourth grade and understand reproduction. What you have failed to explain is why we need to treat gay couples differently from straight couples.
You’ve already said that you don’t believe marriage should be restricted to only those couples that can naturally conceive a child. Are you reversing your position?
Theorys are the highest categorization of proof in science. It’s not a theory unless its well proven. Something less is a hypothesis. But you use it to pretend we do not really know that straight people have an ability to conceive (in general)?
You are comparing adoptions to adoptions while we are talking about natural procreation.
For someone who professes not to think that marriage should be restricted only to couples that can naturally conceive a child, you certainly are spending a lot of time defending that position.
You ahven’t addressed a lot of what I said on the issue.
No I am not reversing my position. If it doesn’t make sense to you, read it again a few times and look for a light that it makes sense in. That’s what we do when we TRY to understand one another.
Address the privacy concerns please.
Excellent. So you agree that marriage should not be restricted only to those couples that can naturally conceive a child. You also cannot show any societal harm that would be caused by gay couples legally marrying. And so it appears we are on the same page.
This is good news, since I have actual work to get done today. 
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.