[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]
Did I say appeared? If I did I misspoke.[/quote]
Nope, I did. Go ahead and explain exactly how homoexuality is unnatural, please.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
“Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/world/main604084.shtml[/quote]
It’s easy for people to dismiss gay marriage across the pond as an experiment by those “crazy Europeans”, but now we can view the effects (or more aptly, the nonissue) of gay marriage on straight marriage in our own country.
I still don’t understand why they think my partner and me being married would affect their own marriage in any way. Maybe it makes them feel less special because they can’t restrict the right to straight couples? But beyond that, how does it affect them? Are more straight couples going to divorce because gays are now allowed to marry?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Good post.
Well, it’s hard to know where to begin with the errors on this one. My generalization is a generalization, and it doesn’t ignore cases where children aren’t better off being raised by their biological parents - it’s a generalization, and it recognizes - like all generalizations - exceptions to the rule. The exceptions don’t disprove the generalization.
If you want to attack the generalization itself, that’s fine, but my generalizations don’t ignore any exceptions. More on this at the bottom.
[quote]2. Research has demonstrated that children of gay parents are equal on
standard measures of physical and psychological health to children
raised by straight parents.
See below - I think this needs to be wrapped up in one threshold question.
[quote]4. Gay marriage already exists in some states (and in other
countries), and to my knowledge there is no evidence that this has
threatened straight marriage in any way. Why would it?[/quote]
Asked and answered, a thousand times - we aren’t going to hit the reset button.
[quote]5. There is no evidence that gay marriage would increase the number of
surrogate births. Gays already have surrogate children, without being
able to marry. Furthermore, there is no evidence that children born
surrogately would otherwise be born to straight parents. The
alternative would be for these children not to be born at all.[/quote]
Yes, there is - gay parents (somewhat a contradiction in terms) would gain more benefits from surrogate children, and marriage in any event encourages children. And add on top of it that with gay marriage, gay parents would finally feel “validated” as parents (one of the primary quests of the gay marriage project), and it certainly stands to reason that they will start doing more of exactly that - becoming parents - because, finally society has told us we are good enough, smart enough, etc.
[quote]6. Marriage already provides benefits to children not being raised by
their biological parents. Nobody would argue an adopted child raised
by a married straight couple would not be better off than if the
straight couple weren’t married. Given that, marriage is beneficial
regardless of whether or not the children are raised by their
biological parents.[/quote]
No, not quite - you say “marriage” is beneficial, and cite adopted children, etc., but that kind of “marriage” is not the equivalent of “gay marriage”. You conflate the two under the umbrella of “marriage”, hoping no one really notices, and that certainly cannot be done. You just simply say “marriage”, and conclude, “therefore gay marriage would also be good, because , well, it is marriage, right?”. But the kind of marriage you note in your example is still a binary union between a man and a woman, even they are not the biological parents.
Two things to take from that: (1) that kind of marriage is good for children who are not being raised by their biological parents, and (2) that kind of marriage does not in any way interfere with the purpose of marriage.
There’s an aside to this, of course, that children not only benefit from being raised by their biological parents, but also that children benefit from distinct masculine and feminine spheres of influence, but that’s a topic for another time.
But to the threshold question: do you believe that there is no advantage to children being raised by the parents responsible for their birth? Yes or no?
Don’t allude to vague studies - I want to know what you think. Is there any qualitative difference between a kid being raised by loving biological parents and loving (alternative) parents? Any difference? And “alternative”, of course, encompasses anything other than the two parents that are responsible for the birth - gay, straight with mutiple partners, bisexual with multiple partners. And if there is any hierarchy, tell me (i.e., X is better than Y, but both X and Y are better than Z, which is just plain bad).
I want to know. Don’t get caught up in exceptions, we are talking generally speaking - is any one of these arrangements better for a kid to be raised in, yes or no?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]
Did I say appeared? If I did I misspoke.[/quote]
Nope, I did. Go ahead and explain exactly how homoexuality is unnatural, please.[/quote]
Do you know anything about Natural Law?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]
Did I say appeared? If I did I misspoke.[/quote]
Nope, I did. Go ahead and explain exactly how homoexuality is unnatural, please.[/quote]
Do you know anything about Natural Law?[/quote]
Do you? LOL.
Inb4 BC spouts off Christian natural law while ignoring all other schools of thought on the subject.
Idiot.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]
Did I say appeared? If I did I misspoke.[/quote]
Nope, I did. Go ahead and explain exactly how homoexuality is unnatural, please.[/quote]
Do you know anything about Natural Law?[/quote]
Do you know how to answer a question?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Good post.
Well, it’s hard to know where to begin with the errors on this one. My generalization is a generalization, and it doesn’t ignore cases where children aren’t better off being raised by their biological parents - it’s a generalization, and it recognizes - like all generalizations - exceptions to the rule. The exceptions don’t disprove the generalization.
If you want to attack the generalization itself, that’s fine, but my generalizations don’t ignore any exceptions. More on this at the bottom.
[quote]2. Research has demonstrated that children of gay parents are equal on
standard measures of physical and psychological health to children
raised by straight parents.
See below - I think this needs to be wrapped up in one threshold question.
[quote]4. Gay marriage already exists in some states (and in other
countries), and to my knowledge there is no evidence that this has
threatened straight marriage in any way. Why would it?[/quote]
Asked and answered, a thousand times - we aren’t going to hit the reset button.
[quote]5. There is no evidence that gay marriage would increase the number of
surrogate births. Gays already have surrogate children, without being
able to marry. Furthermore, there is no evidence that children born
surrogately would otherwise be born to straight parents. The
alternative would be for these children not to be born at all.[/quote]
Yes, there is - gay parents (somewhat a contradiction in terms) would gain more benefits from surrogate children, and marriage in any event encourages children. And add on top of it that with gay marriage, gay parents would finally feel “validated” as parents (one of the primary quests of the gay marriage project), and it certainly stands to reason that they will start doing more of exactly that - becoming parents - because, finally society has told us we are good enough, smart enough, etc.
[quote]6. Marriage already provides benefits to children not being raised by
their biological parents. Nobody would argue an adopted child raised
by a married straight couple would not be better off than if the
straight couple weren’t married. Given that, marriage is beneficial
regardless of whether or not the children are raised by their
biological parents.[/quote]
No, not quite - you say “marriage” is beneficial, and cite adopted children, etc., but that kind of “marriage” is not the equivalent of “gay marriage”. You conflate the two under the umbrella of “marriage”, hoping no one really notices, and that certainly cannot be done. You just simply say “marriage”, and conclude, “therefore gay marriage would also be good, because , well, it is marriage, right?”. But the kind of marriage you note in your example is still a binary union between a man and a woman, even they are not the biological parents.
Two things to take from that: (1) that kind of marriage is good for children who are not being raised by their biological parents, and (2) that kind of marriage does not in any way interfere with the purpose of marriage.
There’s an aside to this, of course, that children not only benefit from being raised by their biological parents, but also that children benefit from distinct masculine and feminine spheres of influence, but that’s a topic for another time.
But to the threshold question: do you believe that there is no advantage to children being raised by the parents responsible for their birth? Yes or no?
Don’t allude to vague studies - I want to know what you think. Is there any qualitative difference between a kid being raised by loving biological parents and loving (alternative) parents? Any difference? And “alternative”, of course, encompasses anything other than the two parents that are responsible for the birth - gay, straight with mutiple partners, bisexual with multiple partners. And if there is any hierarchy, tell me (i.e., X is better than Y, but both X and Y are better than Z, which is just plain bad).
I want to know. Don’t get caught up in exceptions, we are talking generally speaking - is any one of these arrangements better for a kid to be raised in, yes or no?[/quote]
Looks like you agree there are cases where children are better off
not being raised by their biological parents. You also agree that
those children are generally better off raised by married rather than
unmarried adoptive parents. Can you expand on why you believe marriage
between an adoptive straight couple is advantageous to their children?
Good point on gay marriage potentially increasing the number of
surrogate births. I think you may be right on that count.
Is it your position that children would be better off not being
born at all, than to be surrogately conceived to gay parents? If not,
there is a case to be made for the advantages of marriage for those
children.
To answer your question, I think there may be some advantage to
children being raised by the parents responsible for their birth, if
all other things are equal. That may surprise you given my earlier
statement, but I think it creates less confusion for a kid if she is
fortunate enough to be raised by loving, capable biological parents.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never disagreed with that point. To your question: yes, it is better for adopted kids to be raised by married parents for several reasons: (1) children get better rearing in an environment based on a permanently committed couple of a man and woman, because it creates stability, family and development superior to other alternative arrangements, and reinforces the importance of the masculine/feminine dynamic in a household, (2) the kids are raised in an environment that reinforces that marriage is good and desirable, so it reinforces the concept of marriage generally, which will be important when that child grows up and becomes of recproductive age, i.e., it promotes the purpose of marriage socially.
[quote]3. Is it your position that children would be better off not being
born at all, than to be surrogately conceived to gay parents? If not,
there is a case to be made for the advantages of marriage for those
children.[/quote]
Not necessarily, but your “do it for the children” approach is backwards - you intentionally create a situation that you think needs a remedy and then offer your purported policy goal as the remedy. But, just as is true re: polygamists (who certainly have children naturally and can use the “do it for the children” approach to “requiring” polygamy, same as you), there is a higher principle in play that doesn’t necessitate your clumsy “do it for the chidlren” approach - the protection and encouragement of marriage. We don’t legalize poloygamy because of the “do it for the children” approach (because we want to discourage the raising of kids in that environment), and so there is no reason to do it for gay marriage.
If you think otherwise, then you think any kind of relationship that somehow manages to produce children deserves marriage. So, do you think this is true?
[quote]4. To answer your question, I think there may be some advantage to
children being raised by the parents responsible for their birth, if
all other things are equal. That may surprise you given my earlier
statement, but I think it creates less confusion for a kid if she is
fortunate enough to be raised by loving, capable biological parents.[/quote]
Good, then we agree that not all ways of raising kids are equal. And because I think that there is an advantage to kids being raised this way (as do you), I think it is an advantage worth setting aside and protecting against “equalization” of lesser ways to raise kids. It’s just that simple, and that is precisely the position that Western society has taken over the course of centuries.
Once we open the door to a false “equalization”, we have now sent a message that we, as a society, really don’t care how kids are raised - i.e., we don’t have a preference. That is a terrible door to open, because we want people who are producing (and are capable of producing) children to not think that way - we want potential and existing parents to think they have to be responsible for the kids they bring into this world and that there isn’t some “equal” alternative across the street they can go dump unwanted children off on. If we “equalize”, we let them off the hook, and completely defeat the entire point of marriage, which is to encourage and enforce the fundamental principle that people who have children (or can) must, must, must take care of them. Period.
Your equalization undermines that entire message, just as a polygamists’ equalization would. That is it - it couldn’t be simpler.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never disagreed with that point. To your question: yes, it is better for adopted kids to be raised by married parents for several reasons: (1) children get better rearing in an environment based on a permanently committed couple of a man and woman, because it creates stability, family and development superior to other alternative arrangements, and reinforces the importance of the masculine/feminine dynamic in a household, (2) the kids are raised in an environment that reinforces that marriage is good and desirable, so it reinforces the concept of marriage generally, which will be important when that child grows up and becomes of recproductive age, i.e., it promotes the purpose of marriage socially.
[quote]3. Is it your position that children would be better off not being
born at all, than to be surrogately conceived to gay parents? If not,
there is a case to be made for the advantages of marriage for those
children.[/quote]
Not necessarily, but your “do it for the children” approach is backwards - you intentionally create a situation that you think needs a remedy and then offer your purported policy goal as the remedy. But, just as is true re: polygamists (who certainly have children naturally and can use the “do it for the children” approach to “requiring” polygamy, same as you), there is a higher principle in play that doesn’t necessitate your clumsy “do it for the chidlren” approach - the protection and encouragement of marriage. We don’t legalize poloygamy because of the “do it for the children” approach (because we want to discourage the raising of kids in that environment), and so there is no reason to do it for gay marriage.
If you think otherwise, then you think any kind of relationship that somehow manages to produce children deserves marriage. So, do you think this is true?
[quote]4. To answer your question, I think there may be some advantage to
children being raised by the parents responsible for their birth, if
all other things are equal. That may surprise you given my earlier
statement, but I think it creates less confusion for a kid if she is
fortunate enough to be raised by loving, capable biological parents.[/quote]
Good, then we agree that not all ways of raising kids are equal. And because I think that there is an advantage to kids being raised this way (as do you), I think it is an advantage worth setting aside and protecting against “equalization” of lesser ways to raise kids. It’s just that simple, and that is precisely the position that Western society has taken over the course of centuries.
Once we open the door to a false “equalization”, we have now sent a message that we, as a society, really don’t care how kids are raised - i.e., we don’t have a preference. That is a terrible door to open, because we want people who are producing (and are capable of producing) children to not think that way - we want potential and existing parents to think they have to be responsible for the kids they bring into this world and that there isn’t some “equal” alternative across the street they can go dump unwanted children off on. If we “equalize”, we let them off the hook, and completely defeat the entire point of marriage, which is to encourage and enforce the fundamental principle that people who have children (or can) must, must, must take care of them. Period.
Your equalization undermines that entire message, just as a polygamists’ equalization would. That is it - it couldn’t be simpler.[/quote]
I agree that marriage provides stability, a sense of family, and
fosters the development of children for straight couples. I also agree
that it encourages children to get married themselves. Given that, why
wouldn’t at least some of these same benefits help children with gay
parents? Would marriage not also provide those children with
stability, a sense of family, etc. relative to if they were raised by
parents who were only boyfriends/girlfriends? Marriage still provides
stability, safety, and a sense of family for these children that
wouldn’t exist to the same extent if the parents weren’t married.
If you don’t believe children are better off not being born at all
than to be surrogately conceived by gay parents, then it sounds to me
like one would support gay parents having surrogate children. The
point here is that gay parents can and do have surrogate children,
irrespective of whether of not they are married. The question is
whether or not those children are better off if their gay parents are
married. I contend that they are.
To answer your question about polygamous relationships, I would
apply the same standard as above. Are the children of polygamous
relationships better off if their parents are married than if they’re
not? If so, then there is a case to be made for allowing their parents
to marry.
We agree that not all ways of raising kids are equal. The question
is which ways of raising kids are advantageous to the kids, relative
to ways that are not advantageous. I contend that marriage, whether
between straight or gay parents, is advantageous to children.
Furthermore, I believe those benefits aren’t mutually exclusive.
Providing marriage benefits to children of gay couples in no way
diminishes the marriage benefits provided to children of straight
couples. Contrary to sending a message that we, as a society, don’t
care how kids are raised, we are sending a strong message that real,
life-long commitment between married parents is important, and that it
provides significant benefits to their children.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ll get to the others in a bit, but this isn’t what was asked - I am asking you if you think the children of polygamists are/would be better off if their parents were married.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ll get to the others in a bit, but this isn’t what was asked - I am asking you if you think the children of polygamists are/would be better off if their parents were married. [/quote]
Yes, I believe they would be better off.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, I believe they would be better off. [/quote]
Good, next step - is there an arrangement that you think children wouldn’t be better off if the adults in charge of them were legally married (holding everything as normal and general, assuming no exceptions such as abuse, etc.)?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, I believe they would be better off. [/quote]
Good, next step - is there an arrangement that you think children wouldn’t be better off if the adults in charge of them were legally married (holding everything as normal and general, assuming no exceptions such as abuse, etc.)?
[/quote]
Not that I can think of, as long as the adults in charge are parents rather than, say, orphanage administrators.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not that I can think of, as long as the adults in charge are parents rather than, say, orphanage administrators.[/quote]
Good, then you have made my point for me. If children being raised in every one of these arrangements (however arranged by consenting adults) would benefit from “marriage” - a position you have now committed to - then on principle, on your principle, marriage should be extended to all of these for the benefit of the children. After all, why leave any of these kids behind?
Such a principle, as I have stated all along, leads to defining marriage out of existence. And now you’ve just established that for me. According to your own theory, there isn’t a single arrangement that shouldn’t be afforded recognition of “marriage” as long as someone can say that the kids involved in that arrangement would benefit - we have to “do it for the kids”.
So, under that rubric, now “marriage” means anything, and accordingly, it means nothing. Certainly nothing special - just a collection of legal rights that give families extra goodies (tax deductions, etc.) as long as kids are somehow involved.
It wouldn’t even be marriage by name, it’d be government-funded benefits for taking care of children. Marriage would no longer exist - just a set of tax breaks and subsidies, etc. for people who have come into the possession of children, one way or another, and the family structure is completely irrelevant.
Well, there you have it. There’s nothing left for me to do.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not that I can think of, as long as the adults in charge are parents rather than, say, orphanage administrators.[/quote]
Good, then you have made my point for me. If children being raised in every one of these arrangements (however arranged by consenting adults) would benefit from “marriage” - a position you have now committed to - then on principle, on your principle, marriage should be extended to all of these for the benefit of the children. After all, why leave any of these kids behind?
Such a principle, as I have stated all along, leads to defining marriage out of existence. And now you’ve just established that for me. According to your own theory, there isn’t a single arrangement that shouldn’t be afforded recognition of “marriage” as long as someone can say that the kids involved in that arrangement would benefit - we have to “do it for the kids”.
So, under that rubric, now “marriage” means anything, and accordingly, it means nothing. Certainly nothing special - just a collection of legal rights that give families extra goodies (tax deductions, etc.) as long as kids are somehow involved.
It wouldn’t even be marriage by name, it’d be government-funded benefits for taking care of children. Marriage would no longer exist - just a set of tax breaks and subsidies, etc. for people who have come into the possession of children, one way or another, and the family structure is completely irrelevant.
Well, there you have it. There’s nothing left for me to do. [/quote]
I qualified my agreement to only include parents, rather than alternate non-parental arrangements like orphanage administrators.
How would it define marriage out of existence to allow all parents to marry? If marriage were indistinguishable from non-marriage, there would be no benefit to children by providing marriage in the first place. But we started with that premise being true. Clearly, children do benefit from their parents being married, and are in a categorically different situation than if their parents weren’t married. Marriage isn’t defined out of existence at all. It is restricted, in the context of this discussion, to parents.
Are you opposed to legal rights between parents that demonstrably benefit children? If so, why?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I qualified my agreement to only include parents, rather than alternate non-parental arrangements like orphanage administrators.[/quote]
That’s fine - I wasn’t thinking of them in the context of parents.
No, none of this is “marriage” - it would be a program to give people certain government provided benefits for kids - that’s it.
That isn’t what marriage is. Your version of “marriage” is an End - a collection of benefits for the raising of children, regardless of how they are raised. Marriage is not an End so much it is a Means - we provide these benefits to generate a certain outcome with respect to the raising of children, not just any old raising of children.
And, I have said repeatedly - when individuals get to define “marriage” however they want (as your theory promotes), then “marriage” doesn’t mean anything outside of the context of an individual preference. If this were the case, marriage would have never been created an institutionalized in the first place. It would serve no purpose.
Of course I am, read every post on this subject. Once again, we aren’t hitting reset on a topic that has already been covered. I have explained this a thousand times.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I qualified my agreement to only include parents, rather than alternate non-parental arrangements like orphanage administrators.[/quote]
That’s fine - I wasn’t thinking of them in the context of parents.
No, none of this is “marriage” - it would be a program to give people certain government provided benefits for kids - that’s it.
That isn’t what marriage is. Your version of “marriage” is an End - a collection of benefits for the raising of children, regardless of how they are raised. Marriage is not an End so much it is a Means - we provide these benefits to generate a certain outcome with respect to the raising of children, not just any old raising of children.
And, I have said repeatedly - when individuals get to define “marriage” however they want (as your theory promotes), then “marriage” doesn’t mean anything outside of the context of an individual preference. If this were the case, marriage would have never been created an institutionalized in the first place. It would serve no purpose.
Of course I am, read every post on this subject. Once again, we aren’t hitting reset on a topic that has already been covered. I have explained this a thousand times.[/quote]
More specifically, marriage would be, at least in part, a program to give parents certain government benefits for kids. It is not defined out of existence, and is to the contrary clearly defined. People don’t get to define it however they want.
You took the position earlier that marriage shouldn’t be granted on the basis of individual rights, but that it should be based on demonstrable value provided to society. Gay and straight marriage benefits kids, and it benefits society. It meets that standard.
My version of marriage is as much about “means” as yours is. It is about providing benefits that foster successful raising of children. And marriage does just that, whether the parents are gay or straight.
[quote]forlife wrote:
People don’t get to define it however they want.
[/quote]
Isn’t this somewhat the basis of the pro gay marriage argument? It would absolutely be people changing the definition.
[quote]forlife wrote:
More specifically, marriage would be, at least in part, a program to give parents certain government benefits for kids. It is not defined out of existence, and is to the contrary clearly defined. People don’t get to define it however they want.[/quote]
Yes, according to you, they do - as long as they are raising kids, somehow, some way, they should qualify for “marriage”.
No - and you can’t keep hitting reset. Marriage certainly benefits society, but it benefits society is a very particular way. You have made the case that marriage needs to be re-defined to ignore this particular way. You’ve said, you’ve committed to it.
Gay marriage doesn’t meet the standard for all the reasons noted above - it doesn’t benefit society in the particular way marriage benefits society. It just doesn’t.
Completely and unequivocally false - you don’t a bona fide Means other than to give parents benefits for raising kids, and that is not and never has been the Means that marriage serves as, and you don’t even require that kids be raised “successfully” - you don’t care how they are raised.
Under your theory, you don’t need marriage - you just need for people raising kids to qualify for benefits for the sole and singular purpose of raising kids - and nothing more. That ain’t marriage, and never has been.
Your version negates the entire concept of marriage, because it doesn’t discourage any kind of family arrangement of child raising structure - none. As such, it ceases to be marriage - society couldn’t care less if anyone was “married” or not and the meaning of marriage legally and culturally is eviscerated.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
More specifically, marriage would be, at least in part, a program to give parents certain government benefits for kids. It is not defined out of existence, and is to the contrary clearly defined. People don’t get to define it however they want.[/quote]
Yes, according to you, they do - as long as they are raising kids, somehow, some way, they should qualify for “marriage”.
No - and you can’t keep hitting reset. Marriage certainly benefits society, but it benefits society is a very particular way. You have made the case that marriage needs to be re-defined to ignore this particular way. You’ve said, you’ve committed to it.
Gay marriage doesn’t meet the standard for all the reasons noted above - it doesn’t benefit society in the particular way marriage benefits society. It just doesn’t.
Completely and unequivocally false - you don’t a bona fide Means other than to give parents benefits for raising kids, and that is not and never has been the Means that marriage serves as, and you don’t even require that kids be raised “successfully” - you don’t care how they are raised.
Under your theory, you don’t need marriage - you just need for people raising kids to qualify for benefits for the sole and singular purpose of raising kids - and nothing more. That ain’t marriage, and never has been.
Your version negates the entire concept of marriage, because it doesn’t discourage any kind of family arrangement of child raising structure - none. As such, it ceases to be marriage - society couldn’t care less if anyone was “married” or not and the meaning of marriage legally and culturally is eviscerated.
[/quote]
I specifically argued they would need to be parents, not just raise children. Orphanages raise children. Orphanages aren’t parents. And again, the point is that marriage is clearly defined. You may not like the definition, but is still a clear definition. So let’s be done with the “defining marriage out of existence” argument.
I disagree. Gay marriage benefits society in many of the same ways straight marriage benefits society. You’ve said marriage provides children of straight parents with security. It does the same for children of gay parents. If you disagree with this, please explain why.