Opposing Gay marriage and lifestyle?

Asked and answered, repeatedly.

 

Feel free to point out where that answered. So far it has been asked- and avoided.

So once again- why aren't the well being of children being raised by homosexuals equally important?

 

You completely miss what marriage ACTUALLY is about: love and companionship. Your post here shows you only see it two ways: your idea of the right way which is "improving the well being of children", and an obvious interpretation to the wrong way which is the "gaygenda" to promote homosexuality. Really? So it's not about two people who want to get married because they love each other?

And what are the factors that show gay couples don't improve the well being of children as well as straight couples? People were saying the same thing about interracial marriages, too. And the major factor there was that mixed race children would be shunned by society. That they would struggle with their parents being involved in a relationship not socially accepted. Sound about right?

Wouldn't that be a major factor here as well? Is that enough to deny marriage to gay couples as it once was to interracial couples? (it might be enough to make an argument against incest marriage since their relationship may produce damaged offspring).

And really what are you arguing here? Old people, infertile people, they can still get married. Drug addicts, alcoholics, people who would theoretically provide an environment that is not for "improving the well being of children" they can get married. A woman can get married to a man who has a life sentence. Assuming she's faithful to him, that means that most likely the father will not be present for most of the child/children's life.

It seems more that you need to shift your argument away from "who should be allowed to get married" and over to "who should be allowed to care for children".

In any case your "improving the well being of children" argument maaaaay not be as sound as you think:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

 

"Love and companionship" need no licensing and regulation.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Paternity and obligations of support do.

 

Which part dont you understand?

 

Interracial couples procreate, just like same race couples. The children of interracial couples need and benefit from a stable home with both their mother and father just as much as children of same race couples. The race of the parents has NO RATIONAL RELATION to the stated governmental interest.
AND procreation is an impossibility between two people of the same sex, even when they are closely related.

 

They compare to children in the "general population" instead of making a relevant comparison to the children with their married mother and father in the home. Typical of these studies.

 

Why you won't answer the question.

So once again- why aren't the well being of children being raised by homosexuals equally important?

Children are being raised by homosexuals- why don't you think that the well being of those children is equally important?

 

Repeatedly silly little man. The fact that you don't like my answer doesn't change the fact that I have given it.

 

So once again- why aren't the well being of children being raised by homosexuals equally important?

Children are being raised by homosexuals- why don't you think that the well being of those children is equally important?

 

Also apply to same sex marriage

 

Paternity and obligations of support exist even without marriage.

As the judge in Wisconsin stated so eloquently:

The lack of any attempts by the state to dissuade infertile persons from marriage is proof
that marriage is about many things, including love, companionship, sexual intimacy, commitment,
responsibility, stability and procreation and that Wisconsin respects the decisions of its
heterosexual citizens to determine for themselves how to define their marriage

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

So you are in favor of polygamous marriage right?

 

No. .........

 

Amazing how many different topics you can be so totally clueless about. Without marriage there is no obligation to support your sexual partner. And paternity doesn't exist if the father cannot be identified or located.

 

But polygamous marriages have the potential of procreation. And a polygamous marriage would establish the paternity and create a requirement of support.

What is your objection to polygamous marriages?

- - - Updated - - -

So marriage is about establishing an obligation to support your sexual partner?

 

Like Ive said 1000 times, procreation isn't the purpose of marriage. Procreation continues with or without marriage

 

Then do tell what is the purpose of marriage.

 

More children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children in the most common alternative, single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. For the 10,0000 time.
Only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

Cite the law or statute which names marriages purpose as such

 

So why would you be opposed to polygamy when a man would be there and obligated for all his children and all his wives?

 

Now lets see YOU cite the law that names marriages purpose of fostering the formation of stable homes.

 

Paternity law not a marriage law and makes no mention of marriages purpose. Try again.

 

You said "Cite the law or statute". I just did.