At 11/11/12 06:12 PM, 5tarboy wrote:
This may be one reason, but its also to benefit financially and start a family.
Marriage benefits homosexuals financially, and they can raise a family (see below).
Well they obviously do given the dramatic opposition to gay marriage.
But they shouldn't. Marriage is a cultural construct. Claiming that it has to be something because that's how it's been for a while is an appeal to tradition, which is logically fallacious as it doesn't provide any real justification for why a change can't happen. "Change hasn't happened for a while, so it shouldn't happen now" isn't a justifiable argument.
That's not the definition of a married couple. Wanting to be something doesn't mean you are.
The definition of a married couple has changed over the course of history. Throughout history, an overwhelmingly high number of societies believed marriage to be polygamous with men having multiple wives or concubines. In other societies, it was a joining of two families for the purpose of political gain. It can change again.
The majority conceived or adopted children. That's one of the main points of marriage.
Homosexual couples can adopt children, and homosexual women can have artificial insemination. Consequently, that makes them no different than heterosexual couples who are sterile or passed child bearing age.
At 11/12/12 07:55 PM, Light wrote:
Everyone should read this homophobic article by the Concerned Women for America, a religious organization seeking to impose its values on everyone else.
You can just feel the butthurt in the article when they discuss the legalization of marriage in 2 states via popular vote.
Roam around the website for more lulz.
Typical biased babbling of the proponents of theocracy. I like how she supports her point with completely irrelevant data about single parent households. I'm amused whenever scientifically illiterate people attempt (and fail) to be factual. But fortunately, she's only preaching to the choir.