You are presenting personal opinions as though they were indisputable fact.
"The same sex unit is not as stable" as "married hetero couples"? How do we know that? Wouldn't we have to first permit legalized same-sex marriage and study the results over time to see if the "stability" is demonstrably different from hetero couples?
And what if the empirical evidence revealed that gay marriages were MORE stable than hetero marriages? You would still be opposed to same-sex marriages, right?
With respect to your comment "There is no real need for gay marriage except for the few who desire recognition to make themselves feel better." Perhaps you would care to amplify your statement. What PRINCIPLES underlie your argument? We should grant rights or equal protection of law based upon what rules?
Fourth time:
Stop hiding from the polygammy issue. Why do you think your marriage defintion must stop at any two persons? Why not three or five.
Stop hiding.
Fourth time on this issue as well.
You: GAY BROTHERS: How many gay brothers do you suppose there are in our country? If they ALL decided to marry, what adverse consequence do you anticipate occurring?
Me: So, you would permit gay brothers or sisters to marry. Thank you for being clear. Now, how about a father and son? Father and 18 year old daughter? Please state your reasons why or why not in each case.
Stop hiding. Why are you afraid to answer these questions?
And what if the empirical evidence revealed that gay marriages were MORE stable than hetero marriages? You would still be opposed to same-sex marriages, right?
The extremely well-known and well-documented homosexual promiscuity with all the attendant disease-spreading consequences puts the lie to your conjecture. In addition, what would be the point of your proposed societal experiment if the results were shown to be disastrous for American life--would you then say, "Oh, well, too bad, I guess we were wrong" after the destruction?
Instead of just asking us questions why not answer some of ours?
I can't stand people who answer a question with another question...
One principal is the first amendment. For instance, if homosexuals marriage was protected BY LAW would churches be allowed to deny employment, benefits, etc. to homosexuals? One instance of this is laws proposed to FORCE Catholic pro-life hospitals and Catholic pro-life medical professionals to perform abortions if they receive any government money, even in the form of medicare payments.
You will have a hard time getting ANY conservative Christians to submit to being bound by your agenda.
The hypothetical you pose is one that will never jive with reality, bascially because such unions are so flawed to begin with that they are doomed to failure. Thus, there is no point in discussing it or considering it further.
"And what if the empirical evidence revealed that gay marriages were MORE stable than hetero marriages? You would still be opposed to same-sex marriages, right? "
Here's what gay guys do, they stick their penises up the poop shutes of other men. That's why they get aids and a whole host of other diseases. They die young, from disease and suicide. Marriage allows them to raise children. Many similar problems exist for lesbians, though admittedly not as severe.
Ain't no way this is a healthy idea. Why don't you just admit that you enjoy playing in other peoples feces?
Once again, you seem to be able to find all these "noble" reasons to support gay marriage but all those "noble" reason would also apply to polygamy. You don't fix hetero marriage, which you claim is broken, by introducing gay marriage. That's an illogical response.
We don't CARE about the stability of gay couples. They mean nothing to society.