Quote:
|
I stopped taking the author seriously after the following passage:
|
I'm sorry, your point is what? You're denying the importance of sexual dimorphism?
Quote:
|
Hmmmmmmm also lets not forget lesbians can be artificial inseminated. No logical arguement against homosexuality. All it boils down to is ignorance and stupidity.
|
Speaking of ignorance; this is the second time the article I linked to (the sole one, which is quite brief and easy to read) answers your point.
Quote:
|
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce.
|
....
Quote:
|
Since when has repruduction been the only purpose of a modern sexual relationship?
|
Again, from the article I linked to earlier:
Quote:
|
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
|
Quote:
|
Extending the marriage ban to people over 60 is not impractical at all.
|
Point being?
Quote:
|
And who said that marriage's sole purpose is to function as formal institution for biological breeding?
|
Even if we ignore the historical & anthropological evidence which tells us that the function of marriage is procreation; the fact of the matter is that children who grow up in a household headed by a heterosexual married couple are more successful than those grow up in alternative situations, whether homosexual, single parent (of either sex), or the step-parent or adopted child situations.
Quote:
|
Why would such a thing even be necessary?
|
Because once birth rates fall beneath a level for a population to sustain itself, there are many notable problems which occur. Amongst them, economic - the GDP will shrink, Govt. revenues will fall, and the only way to prevent this would be massive immigration. I think this is ironic,
considering the attitude immigrants from the 3rd world have towards homosexuality. (LINK)
Quote:
|
If people, regardless of sexual orientation or other circumstances, feel that a formalisation of their relationship will make them happier, who are you or anyone else to deny them that?
|
Who am I? Well, I'm an Atheist, an American, and unlike those in this thread who claim to oppose Christianity and then fully embrace slave morality, I'm consistent in my rejection of Christian morality.