- #71
Locrian
- 1,881
- 256
russ_watters said:In any case, such an increase probably would also decrease the number of heterosexual-couple families:
I see no evidence for this. If you want to make me see both sides you will need to not just suggest questions - there is a good chance I've already asked them myself.
How can you say that? Child custody/adoption matters is one of the primary reasons why homosexual couples would want to be legally married.
Those are excellent points. When you ask, "How can you say that?" the only answer I can give is that I typed it out and hit "Submit", much like anyone else.
Custody cases could certainly be an example of something preventing homosexual couples from raising their children now. How often they are ruled against because they are married is not a statistic I know.
I particularly like both examples you gave because they show that the number of homosexual couples rearing children can increase without necessarily reducing the number of heterosexual couples.
There's a big difference between that and the current situation: that marriage resembles the version you see in religion. It wasn't illegal then and it isn't now. It isn't the ceremony that is important to government, its the structure..
How can you say that? Just kidding! ;) Seriously, the first statement is patently untrue. Christian marriages involve God at a very fundamental level. I'm not sure what you could mean by "resembles" but even the appearance of a religionless civil union is very different than a Christian marriage. There are any number of biblical texts that can be used to support this - you probably know more than I.
I'm not sure what you could mean by structure. The structure of a religious marriage is between a man, woman and God. When you say that religion should define marriage for the government, this is the only acceptable structure you could mean. Is removing God from that structure okay, but swapping one of the person's sexes not? How can you justify that?
I still hold that using a "heterosexual child rearing is superior to homosexual child rearing" argument against gay marriage holds no water, and that trying to define marriage in religious terms is a selective ploy that has recently been made that has little real meaning.
Thank you for your responses