toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Hmm. You just admitted in post #1583 that not all married couples can conceive, nor should it be be a requirement for a married couple to have children. Therefore asserting that the purpose of marriage is to protect the child is redundant, as has been stated to you across this thread.

See the logic now?

it shouldn't be a requirement because it could not reasonably be enforced
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
it shouldn't be a requirement because it could not reasonably be enforced

There's no reason why it should be a requirement for marriage to begin with. Would you only allow couples to marry if they had the intention of reproducing had you the power to enforce such?
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Seriously Chrysostom, you lost this discussion 40 pages ago. Repeating the same questions over and over again does not help your cause, it only demonstrates that you are unable to actually argue your case so you will rather keep disrupting with asking the same questions over and over again.

Allowing homosexual marriage does nothing to hurt children. Not to mention the fact that homosexual couples also takes care of children and they seem to be capable of doing it well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top