why aren't you talking about children?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
why aren't you talking about children?
Why are you assuming that all marriages involve children? Why can't a child of gay parents be protected?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
The topic doesn't mention children. We are discussing marriage. They are two separate issues.
I guess I am here to connect the dots for you
let me know when they have one
They do all the time. Unless of course, you are willing to argue that a heterosexual couple that has to rely on adoption or a surrogate do not have children.
Is that the case? Are you willing to argue that ANYONE applying for a marriage license should be mandated to undergo a physical and medical tests to make sure BOTH partners are able to biologically produce children prior to being allowed to marry?
You aren't even capable of picking up a pen ...
I have already said that is not practical
but
it is practical to assume that every man and woman who gets married will have a child or two
and
we want to help protect that child
For the same reason I'm not talking about Catholic dogma.
Why aren't you apologizing for this gem:
given it's unrelated to any question or answer prior and insinuatingly, unsupportably horsefeather filled.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by practical. It might be practical to assume that they're going to ride on a blimp, too, but it's not true. Nor is it true that every married couple will have children.
Perhaps, then, you should focus on demonstrating how the prohibition of gay marriage helps protect children.
It's not only not true, but trending in an opposing direction.
What, and give up his Socrates with a head injury methodology? :nono:
I suppose this is going to cost me that apology...
lain:
why do homosexuals need to be protected?
They're citizens entitled to the same privileges and immunities that all Americans are.
I said protected
the premise here is that the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
That's one purpose of marriage, though I think that's mostly the most convenient rock to pick up and throw for your side. Seems to me that it applies to homosexual couples just as well as heterosexual ones.
homosexual couples do not have babies
Not together, no. But they may have children that they are raising together, and those children will benefit from having married (if not biological) children. This has been pointed out many times in this thread, and no one from your side has tackled it head-on that I've seen.
Yes, Chrys ... why are you unable to address this point? You are arguing biology and the ability to bring a child into this world through one on one consensual sex between the married couple.
IF this is the criteria you wish to use, then you must also concede that all heterosexual couples who are unable to bear children without use of a surrogate, adoption or other intervention should not be allowed to marry.
So ... should a man and a woman who are incapable of bringing children into the world through natural means be allowed to marry?
BTW, it would be less redundant and more honest if you and those who are using this ridiculous argument would just admit that you are against homosexual marriage because it is against YOUR religion.
- Status