Have you ever heard of homosexuals reproducing any other way than via a donor?
One is in an opposite-sex marriage, one is in a same-sex marriage. In both cases, the child is biologically related to only one parent. Both children, I assure you, have the “new DNA” of which you speak.
And they got it from two people of the opposite sex. That's how it works, and we didn't have to explain it before our society was dumbed down.
How do you deny marriage to one of these couples, and allow it for another, if both conceived by the same means? You’d have to concede that the reproductive capabilities of the couple are not an issue. So, you’ve lost that argument.
Incorrect. The fact that two people are of the same sex is complete justification for denying them the right to marry. That's because they cannot marry, because they are not of the opposite sex from one another. BTW, a female and a kangaroo could marry using your reasoning, and the female could have a baby that was related to "only one parent" via donated sperm.
In your second paragraph, you say reproduction is not the only purpose of the marital bond. Then you channel Fred Flinstone for a bit, but that’s okay. You finally make this point: “ Even if a particular marriage doesn’t produce offspring, it’s still symbolic to our young people of the nature of humanity and the responsibilities we have to society.” That’s a very good argument for allowing gay couples the same rights we allow straight couples. It’s symbolic of the responsibility we have to treat people fairly and equally in our society. Good point!
No, it's symbolic of the relationship between men and women in society and its central role in directing male energies in a productive direction. You're defining fairness and equality in terms of treating relationships which are not equal, and in fact cannot be equal, as if they were. Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships.
That said, if the word “marriage” is what trips you up, as I’ve said before, I’m all for keeping the government out entirely. It’s a loaded term best left for religions to address. The government can grant equal civil unions, and people can get married in the church of their choice. Government recognition of the “marriage” is unnecessary.
Create a libertarian utopia and then get back to us. I find it amazing that so many people are attracted to an ideology that is essentially parasitic.
“The fact that two people are of the same sex is complete justification for denying them the right to marry. That’s because they cannot marry, because they are not of the opposite sex from one another.”
That is a really precious example of a circular argument, and I thank you for the laugh.
“BTW, a female and a kangaroo could marry using your reasoning, and the female could have a baby that was related to “only one parent” via donated sperm.”
How do you get a kangaroo to consent to marriage?
“You’re defining fairness and equality in terms of treating relationships which are not equal, and in fact cannot be equal, as if they were. Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships.”
Says who?