Then instead of an assertion you should address these two facts that seem quite obviously true:
It's a strange thing to object to argument by assertion, without an unbacked assertion on my part in sight, and then to merely offer two assertions of your own (or that you borrowed) which are contradicted by any number of rather obvious examples.
1. Homosexual couples cannot procreate
They can, merely not together.
2. Homosexuals cannot provide the optimum healthy environment of heterosexual couples
That's merely an assertion, and you've offered nothing to support it but Catholic propaganda.
This is still too vague for me too comment on. I'm not sure what you are referring to by "protections."
I refer you to the document I posted earlier referencing the North Dakota Century Code as an example. Each state (I know of no exceptions) has a section or sections of its laws that deal merely with marriage. These are the protections at stake here.
Yes, necessary for. Have daddy talk to you about the birds and the bees.
:sigh: You merely don't read what you don't like, do you?
An
ad hominem argument is explained
here.
Yes, your "daft" comment was merely such an "argument".
I'd say denying that a child with a mother and a father has the best possible circumstances for healthy growth is daftness in itself.
Here is one overview supporting the commonsensical position.
Narth? Seriously? You want me to respond to comments from a group that exists merely to prevent homosexuals from being treated fairly?
You're being daft again. He can't procreate. He can't raise kids in an optimum setting.
I don't think I've ever met a kid raised in an optimum setting. Sometimes there are money troubles, sometimes daddy beats mommy, sometimes there's infidelity in the parents, sometimes, there's merely divorce. etc. But in any of the horrible conditions that children are sometimes raised in, we never deprive the parents of the basic tools to try to make the best situation they can from it. Unless, of course, the parents are merely homosexuals.
This is really quite frightening. It reminds me of Kreeft's quote on abortion:
| “The next eruption of the demonic will probably appear much more civilized, like the Nazi’s response to those who suspected the Holocaust: “What! Do you think we are barbarians?” Or like the line from A Man for All Seasons: “Come now, Thomas, this is England, not Spain!” This is America. We don’t do holocausts here. (Tell that to thirty million innocent babies already killed by our “healer’s” scalpels, suction tubes, scalding salts, or skull-crushing pliers in their mothers’ wombs).” |
Merely changing the subject? I can see why. :dead:
You are openly denying the need for a mother and a father in a child's upbringing? :doh:
I'm merely denying that there's any reason to believe that a child needs both, and furthermore denying that the prohibition on gay marriage would help to ensure in any meaningful way that children get a mother and a father.
Elevating single parenthood to the level of marriage would be no different than your proposition to elevate homosexual unions to that level. We take something that is objectively inferior with respect to child development and pretend it isn't.
Unless you happen to be Sue Sylvester, you can't marry yourself, which makes the suggestion bizarre to even try to contemplate. And all you seem to be trying to do is merely to tie one social ill to another. Single parenthood is an entirely separate issue from from gay marriage, and whereas I would agree that it is usually not ideal, it is also sometimes the best option available in a situation. And unlike gay marriage, it isn't illegal.
So you admit the well-known sociological fact that children with married parents are in a better position to lead a healthy life?
No. I merely accept the hypothetical temporarily for the sake of offering further critique of your position.
What is 'good' here? We sacrifice the health of children in return for what exactly?
The good: Merely allowing a child to be raised by a happy, loving, committed homosexual couple rather than singly by a gay parent in a string of loose uncommitted relationships, or in a miserable sham marriage to a person of the opposite gender who they cannot love. They may miss out on some element that a child of two "normal" heterosexuals might, but they stand a better chance there than in the situations that are otherwise available.
And equating the two unequal situations is lunacy.
...says the guy who just finished comparing gay marriage to single parenthood. Perhaps you should merely stop while you're still ahead.
Then we're talking about two different things. You are talking about a contract, I am talking about Marriage colloquially understood.
:squint: Funny, then why have you been asking me all along about what interest the state has in the union? I've given an answer, as have others here. To the state, marriage is merely a civil contract, regulated by law.
That is not the topic though. We are talking about colloquial marriage that includes benefits and the like, which should have been obvious from the bulk of this thread. You can change the label if you like, but you know well enough what we've been talking about.
Nonsense. Do I really need to quote for you the myriad times in this thread you've challenged me to specify the interest the state has in the union. Now it seems you want to merely change the subject, having lost so comprehensively.
If you claim to have been speaking about a mere contract, even in spite of my oft-repeated confirmations about the benefits of marriage and the super-contractualness of the thing, then I suppose we're done talking and have been at merely semantical odds.
Have you been reading? Do you remember asking me what interest the state has in a union of two people?
And yes, in case you were wondering. I am intentionally trying to provide you a few examples of the usage of the word "merely", merely hoping that you would get the hang of how to use it correctly.
