Replies

You're basing your argument on the idea that the only reason people engage in lovemaking is to produce children and this is absolutely incorrect. If you have ever worn a condom or had sex with a woman on the pill, then you would know this. Heterosexual couples actually choose not to have children.

Homosexuals want to commit their lives to one another and raise children. "Marriage" protects the children. Homosexual men will find a surrogate mother, (women donate their eggs, too), women will find a sperm donor. They will adopt. They will use the exact same means to them that are available to infertal couples.

Now, no, you're wrong. I've not based my comments on "the only reason people engage in lovemaking," but rather and emphatically my comments are based on simple science, simple biology, x and y, and all that.

You speak quite broadly, I hope you do realize, when writing, "Homosexuals want to commit their lives to one another and raise children."

Raise children? Not their own. Produce children?

They can't. For one, your comment hardly applies generally to homosexuals en masse. For another, their desire is in stark contrast to their ability, and in fact requires the involvement and contributions of others, ie, those who engage in an act of procreation and which act produces an offspring.

You still offer not a whit of a reason as to why a society should recognize this arrangement.

When Little Johnny asks, 'Mommy, where did I come from'?, all that Mommy may respond is, "Well, it wasn't from me and your other Mommy."

Children should not be concieved for the sole purpose of bringing joy to the parents. (That is not only selfish but misguided, as any parent of a teenager knows :)) Once a baby exists, its parents are there to serve, not to be served.

The evidence is unequivocal that the best environment in which to raise a child is a stable, loving heterosexual marriage, period. Now of course I would want to show nothing but support for parents who find themselves outside of that ideal arrangement through no fault of their own (like a widowed single mother). And that is not to say that some homosexual couples couldn't do a better job raising kids than some heterosexual couples.

But to consciously choose to conceive and raise a child in an environment that is known to be fundamentally flawed (i.e., no mommy or no daddy) is flat-out selfish. That many heterosexual couples have children for selfish reasons does not justify us compounding the problem by expanding the practice.

So while I don't find it practical or reasonable to explicitly prohibit such inferior parental arrangements from occurring, I see no reason why the government should legitimize through official sanction anything but the best possible choice. What the government sanctions it encourages.

"Homosexuals want to commit their lives to one another and raise children."

As soon as the idea of homo marriage is completely accepted by society, they'll lose interest in it. Hedonism is their bag. Behaving in a 'normal' manner doesn't do it for them.

"Marriage" protects the children."

If it is about what is best for children, a stable family with a daddy and a mommy is best. Two mommies or two daddies leaves the kid missing an important role model. (And no, Uncle Fred can't really fill in - the mommies can only fool themselves into believing he can.)