 |
Main Page | Contact | Register | Log In |
Yes, for one thing it affects the social value of marriage much more then the others. This is a valid reason for treating it differently, if true. Maybe I should amend our ideal to "that your demographic traits should not be held against you by the law without a damn good reason", and so our debate is over how damn good the reason is in this case. Um, the idea of marriage is to create a stable environment before having children. Should I be reading this with emphasis on 'before' (i.e., the marriage incentive has to precede the children), or emphasis on 'stable' (i.e., same-sex couples are less stable and therefore less fit to raise children)? If the latter my answer is 'citation needed', but I think you meant the former. Would increased child-raising benefits contingent on some preceding time period of stable marriage do the trick? And if you'll humor me in a bit of true-rejection-hunting: if it turned out that making people intending marriage sign a paper that said "We intend to raise children" screened off the effects of sexual orientation, or at least reduced them to the point of being comparable with those of race, religion, etc., would you conclude same-sex marriage should be alllowed? |
|