Replies

Your ignorance of human history is noted. Historicall, marriage has been a property management system--the property in question pre-marriage being the assets of the woman's parents, as well as the woman herself, and post-marriage the property passing to any male heirs resulting from the union.

Uh huh, you retreat to the tired old lines from the homosexual left. The fact is, it is your view of history that is mistaken. Marriage wasn't a "property management system", instead, "The marital alliance is fundamentally a reproductive alliance." (See: Crawford, C., & Salman, C. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions, Lawrence Erlbaum.)

It is well recognized that marriage's unique trait is societal approval and recognition of the union of male and female which results in the bearing and rearing of offspring. (See: Davis, K. (1985)Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution, Russell Sage Foundation.)

I note with interest that this is again about me and my aberrant behavior. You just can't discuss the topic without personalizing it, can you? Emotion is a weak position from which to argue.

You need to try harder than that. Aberrant behavior is just that, Aberrant. You brought that whole focus on yourself. Trying to run and hide behind a false claim of "argument from emotion" isn't going to get you out of the thicket.

Is there evidence to support your implication that the existence of homosexual marriage depresses birth rates?

First, there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage." Frankly, it can't actually exist even if you want to pretend that it does. That said, there is evidence that counterfeit "marriage" increases the out of wedlock birth rate and decreases the marriage rate.

http://www.heritage.org/research/family/wm577.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/ConsequencesMD.cfm

I'm also waiting for some evidence that pregnancy is contingent upon a heterosexual marriage.

Your obstreperousness is noted. However, your game is rapidly growing old. No one ever said that "pregnancy is contingent upon a heterosexual marriage." Your straw-man is a poorly constructed one.

It is true that any male and female can produce offspring, however unless that child is produced within a MARRIAGE between that couple, the chance of the child suffering increases dramatically. There is a multitude of social science data on this topic, far too much to reproduce here.

As I pointed out above, this is why the institution of marriage exists in the first place. To ensure

In an ideal world, no sexual interaction would take place outside of the bounds of wedlock. I understand that might shake you to your core, but it is the truth.

As it is quite clear that you just want to play games and build strawmen, there is probably no need to continue this conversation.

Remember, just as with marriage, you don't get to define terms the way that you want.