Main Page Contact Register Log In



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.


Here's one way to think about it. If it wasn't for it's benefits to child rearing, would anyone have even invented the concept of marriage?


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?


Well, the evidence I've seen suggests it doesn't. Quite possibly it makes it worse. Certainly how frequently gay couples celebrated by the media for adopting children later turn out to be only interested in using them as sex toys is not encouraging.






If it wasn't for it's benefits to child rearing, would anyone have even invented the concept of marriage?


Potentially it is beneficial because two people can be more productive working together than working independently.

Certainly how frequently gay couples celebrated by the media for adopting children later turn out to be only interested in using them as sex toys is not encouraging.


Can you cite anything actually proving that there's a higher occurrence rate with gay couples than with straight couples, or is this anecdotal?
60%
gbear605
stars0
Replies (0)