you can radically reorder the fundamental social unit of society

Does Card (do you) really think that the heterosexual nuclear family is the fundamental social unit of society? I would agree that the fundamental unit of society is the family, but would argue that it is now and has always been much more broadly defined, in day-to-day life if not in law, than any institution that gay marriage could threaten. To put that another way, gay families are already part of society, and extending to them all the protections and immunities that straight families enjoy is not a radical re-ordering of anything.

without political process

Then what is the current round of legislative and public debate, and the many which have preceeded it?

or serious research

And if we outlaw gay marriages (only gay outlaws...) how will we do that research? Oh wait, there have been gay families for many years now, and I've yet to see any serious research that suggests they are in any way harmful to society.

>> Does Card (do you) really think that the heterosexual nuclear family is the fundamental social unit of society?

Yes, I believe that the heterosexual family is the fundamental social unit.

>> but would argue that it is now and has always been much more broadly defined

Historically, families with a homosexual couple have not been part of Western civilization, or any other civilization that I can think of for that matter.

>> Then what is the current round of legislative and public debate, and the many which have preceeded it?

I believe that Mr. Card was referring to the decisions of the judges in Massachussetts. The current debate is a reaction to their decisions. Judges shouldn't dictate policy, that's Mr. Card's point.

>> And if we outlaw gay marriages (only gay outlaws...) how will we do that research?

Gay marriages are already outlawed. The homosexual community wants to reverse this situation.

>> Oh wait, there have been gay families for many years now, and I've yet to see any serious research that suggests they are in any way harmful to society.

"Gay family" is an oxymoron. Homosexuals cannot produce children on their own. They can produce them only if they are handed to them by society by adoption, or if they commit "adultery". Not to mention that a "gay family" is a very bad environment to raise children.

Can you point me to actual research that has studied the effects of being raised by homosexuals on children?

Not to mention that a "gay family" is a very bad environment to raise children.

A bad family is one where basic developmental needs aren't met[1]. This would involve actions of abuse, neglect, or deprivation {no food, blankets, medicine, etc.}. There is little reason to think that gay people would treat children more abusively or neglectfully, and many reasons to think otherwise. All the studies I know of confirm this. In my mind this is besides the point anyway, equality before the law is a normative goal, not an "efficiency" one.

[1]for instance see Sandra Scarr's philosophy of "good enough" parents. Behavioral geneticists know that parents play a much smaller role in children's developmental well-being than most people still recognize.

Jason, your study doesn't have any numbers in it. I'm a bit skeptical of articles that are all talk and don't have any hard data in them.

Also, your list of what a "bad family" is is incomplete, because we're talking about humans here. The elements in your list apply just as easily to the growing of vines or the breeding of dogs as they do to humans.

Also, your list of what a "bad family" is is incomplete, because we're talking about humans here.

The "good enough" parented child grows up just as intelligent, law-abiding, and psychologically well-adjusted as any other kid. So in very important ways kids are like dogs and plants. I know you have a strong feeling that differences in parenting and parental environment are very consequential, but behavioral genetics demonstrates something very different.

Let's go a different route, why is the gay home a "bad environment"?

The failure to establish an effect does not mean that the effect does not exist, but either that it doesn't exist, or the procedure used to establish it is not the right procedure.

>> Let's go a different route, why is the gay home a "bad environment"?

The "gay home" is a bad environment for the same reason that Antarctica is a bad environment for humans. It's the wrong environment for humans, an environment to which we are not adapted, an environment that goes counter to the evolutionary history not only of Homo sapiens, but of the entire animal kingdom.

Of course, humans can do "unnatural things", like live in Antarctica, or go to the moon, but they have technology to protect them against these unnatural things. What is there to protect kids against the unnatural environment of being raised in a homosexual family?

Greetings Dienekes! I am having a discussion in Richard Poe´s forum (www.richardpoe.com) and I am loosing my patience with him and a afrocentrist guy there. Could you go there leave him a good message? Please!

a religion which sounds quite "weird" to me, but I don't see any "overt" Mormon views in his writings that would put me off.

the whole ships of earth series was a take off on the book of mormon-those outside the religion wouldn't notice it (the book of mormon reads like stylistically weird fantasy fiction if you don't accept its premises), though some mormons accused him of being blasphemous. also, one of ender's parents was mormon.

finally, card did his mission work in brazil, explaining the luso flavor of the world in speaker for the dead....

Greetings Dienekes! I am having a discussion in Richard Poe´s forum (www.richardpoe.com) and I am loosing my patience with him and a afrocentrist guy there. Could you go there leave him a good message? Please!

Dienekes, once again I find your logic and intellectual prowess refreshing. Can you feel the hand of the modern left wing dogma reaching out to taint all of the science, history, morality, and philosophy that has made western culture and all its glory? The original gay rights lobby was funded by the insurance companies that didn't want to pay for them to be institutionalized. The purpose of marriage has always been to identify blood lines for establishing heirs (paternal protection)and preventing inbreeding. It predates all religion and culture, because it makes sense! Homosexuality is a perversion and mental oddity, nothing more, nothing less. All of the arguments I hear for allowing gay marriage and acceptance of homosexuality is bunk. Theres' is based on sex and not the true nature of "love" paternal protection coupled with maternal responsibility forming a family unit as part of society. Theirs' is a Psudo immitation. It's like some hillbilly getting married to his sheep. They have sex and feel romantic towards one another, I guess.......I hope I didn't sound too overtly Mormon there either. :)

Can you point me to actual research that has studied the effects of being raised by homosexuals on children?

A quick search turned up these position statements and papers:

from the AAA:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

this and this from PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43(4):335, 2002:

Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.

Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 19-35.:

The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren)

Children of lesbian and gay parents. Patterson CJ. Child Dev. 1992 Oct;63(5):1025-42.:

To date... there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.

Child development and quality of parenting in lesbian families: no psychosocial indications for a-priori withholding of infertility treatment. A systematic review. Hunfeld JA, Fauser BC, de Beaufort ID, Passchier JP. Hum Reprod Update. 2002 Nov-Dec;8(6):579-90.:

The evidence of the studies... was strong for the conclusion that in lesbian families the psychosocial development of children (median age 6.1 years) and the quality of parenting are not different from those in healthy heterosexual two-parent families

1. The AAA also believes that race doesn't exist. Their politics are not science.

2. Being raised by 1-2 homosexual parents is not the same as being raised in a "gay family".

3. Most studies were made with samples of volunteers. Volunteers don't behave as the general population.

"Raising a child to adulthood is a twenty-year task. Adoption agencies generally require adoptive parents to be less than about 40 years old so that they are likely to be fit and active until the child reaches adulthood.

Homosexual longevity has been studied by a US research team headed by Dr Paul Cameron, published in 1994. Over 13 years, the team compared 6737 obituaries from 18 US homosexual publications with a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. Those from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity: the median age of death (ie the age at which half had died) for married men was 75 and for married women was 79 years. For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and for unmarried women it was 71 years.

Homosexuals had a much shorter life span. The male homosexuals who died of AIDS had a median age at death of only 39 and those who died of non-AIDS causes lived only slightly longer - to a median age of 42 years. The lesbians were similar - they had a median age of death of 44 years.

The contrast in survival to age 65 was even more stark. The regular newspapers showed that 80% of married men and 85% of married women reached 65 years and so did 32% of unmarried or divorced men and 60% of unmarried women. For homosexuals the picture was grim: only 1% of homosexual men with AIDS, just 9% of other homosexual men and 20% of lesbians reached 65 years.

Three percent of male homosexuals died violently - they were 116 times more likely to be murdered, were much more likely to commit suicide and had more road accidents than other people. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. For lesbians 18% died of murder, suicide or accidents - a rate 456 times higher than other women their age. Almost a third of the lesbians died from cancer, often of the reproductive organs."

"US ethics professor Thomas Schmidt says that substance abuse, depression and suicide are in "epidemic" proportions in the homosexual community. Citing references, he says: "The combined results of two studies reveal that 47% of 405 male homosexual subjects had a history of alcohol abuse (compared to 24% of males generally) and 51 % had a history of (illicit) drug abuse (compared to 7% of males generally). A comparable study of female homosexuals revealed 35% with a history of alcohol abuse (compared to 5% of females generally)... The current consensus of researchers is that about 30% of homosexuals, both male and female, are problem drinkers, as compared to 10% of the general population."
Source

A society which allows homosexuals to raise children deserves its fate.

Dienekes! Are you really so conservative and Levitically correct!? Not getting into adoption as an issue right now - but Paul Cameron is a terrible source. He thinks that gay sex is irresistible- to everyone- and that homophobic prejudice is what keeps everyone in line. Here's a link from Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1088627/posts
and one that summarizes his career:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
His methodology on generating life expectancies are asinine - the gayness of the deceased does not go usually noted EXCEPT in cases of AIDS. 91% of his obits of men had that as the cause of death. Give me a break.

Antaeus

I am not "Levitically-correct". Plato summarizes the view held by all normal members of the human species:

"And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. (Laws, I. 636-c.)"

Their politics are not science.

Neither are your prejudices. I'm done with you.

Being raised by 1-2 homosexual parents is not the same as being raised in a "gay family".

Then what does constitute a gay family?

Most studies were made with samples of volunteers. Volunteers don't behave as the general population.

A good point, and one that the Scand J Psych study (for instance) makes as well. But I haven't been able to find any actual research indicating harm, and neither have, inter alia, the authors and organisations I quoted above. In the absence of evidence for, and with reasonable if not absolute evidence against, gay families (that is, being raised by one or more homosexual parents) being harmful to children, it seems unreasonable to demand that gay citizens be content with second-class status for some undefined length of time while more evidence is gathered. (To say nothing of the fact that the question of gay adoption can be considered separately from gay marriage.) Appeals to prejudice (Paul Cameron) or ancient ignorance (Plato -- do you believe in ideal forms too?) do not sway me.

Homosexuals may raise all the children they want if they create them; however, society must (a) not change its definition of marriage, (b) not allow homosexuals to adopt children: the right of children to be raised by regular parents exceeds the desire by homosexuals to raise children which they have not produced.

Dammit! My kneejerk comment actually posted; I thought I'd cancelled it (in favour of the more reasonable response that followed). My apologies.

I have one more question: if "Homosexuals may raise all the children they want if they create them", what would your response be to two gay people (or couples) of opposite sex contracting to create children -- say, by IVF?

Actually, make that two questions: why should society not change its definition of marriage? I hear a lot of vague rhetoric about "de-stabilising society" and "undermining heterosexual marriage", but I cannot imagine any specific mechanism(s) by which such things might occur. If same-sex marriage is made legal, what specific harms do you predict will occur? How, for instance, will existing or future hetero marriages be affected?

Plato summarizes the view held by all normal members of the human species

Plato also wanted children to be raised communally with the information of their true parentage hidden from them. Plato also wanted to ban poetry, among many of his other crazy ideas. The latter writings of Plato reveal him for what he was in the latter part of his life: a Proto-fascist.

Why do homosexuals want to change the meaning of language? Marriage = male+female. Deal with it!

Why do homosexuals want to change the meaning of language? Marriage = male+female. Deal with it!

Why do homophobes want to change the meaning of freedom? Freedom = the right to do what you want with your own life. Deal with that!

You can have all the homosexual orgies you want dude, but that isn't called "marriage". Pick a dictionary:

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.

Homosexual orgies are already legal. Homosexuals want the right to marry. Follow along more closely. American Heritage definition of marriage #3: Any close union.

Next question?

Mike, what if you want to marry four women, are you allowed to do that in pink la-la-land? If I wanted to marry four women and they all wanted to marry me, why am I not allowed to? What if an 11-year-old wants to marry a 50-year-old and her parents agree? What if she wants to marry her dad?

Let's destroy society to please the homosexual deviants!

If I wanted to marry four women and they all wanted to marry me, why am I not allowed to?

Indeed, why should the five of you not marry? I can see no reason to forbid it, myself, but that's an entirely unrelated legal issue. Advocates of polygamy will have to deal with laws expressly forbidding that practice no matter what the outcome of the gay marriage debate might be.

What if an 11-year-old wants to marry a 50-year-old and her parents agree? What if she wants to marry her dad?

The young lady cannot legally give informed consent to a marriage; May and her December suitor will have to wait until she attains her majority. Even then, she will not be allowed to marry a relative closer than a first cousin (and that only in a few states).

You speak of destroying society, so I ask: by what specific mechanism(s) will gay marriage cause this destruction to come to pass? Several thousand gay couples have married in the US to date; since the effect on society appears to have been, well, nothing whatsoever, I have to wonder what the threshold is.

>> Even then, she will not be allowed to marry a relative closer than a first cousin (and that only in a few states).

You agree with this law?

Jim,

It's a simple matter of the right of contract. I would only bar the right of marriage to those who are unable to freely enter into a contract: animals, and children. Biblically accepted marriages such as incest(Lot and his daughters) and polygamy (Solomon and his wives) would, indeed, be legal if I had my way.

Let's destroy society to please the homosexual deviants!

Deviant is just a hate term. It has no role in rational discussion. Homosexuals are no more deviant than left-handed people, heterosexuals who choose not to marry, or heterosexuals who choose to marry but choose not to have children.

Please, elaborate on how society will be destroyed thru homosexual marriage. It's obvious gay marriage is just the latest in a long line of predictions of the end of the world. The world was going to end when we allowed interracial marriage, the world was going to end when we allow abortion, the world was going to end when we allow contraception, the world was going to end when we allow women the vote, the world was going to end when we end slavery, and on and on. People ill-disposed towards freedom have been no more better at predicting the end of the world than they have been at predicting the return of Jesus.

No one is removing any homosexual's freedom to marry. If they can find a member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them, they are free to do so.

No one is removing any homosexual's freedom to marry. If they can find a member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them, they are free to do so.

By the same token, the Soviet Union was a democracy. You could vote for any communist party member you wanted.

Are you trying to amuse us with your sillier and silliest arguments?

First, go easy on the sarcasm.
Second, the definition of democracy is that every citizen of the dêmos can vote and stand for office. Hence, the Soviet Union was not a democracy. And, voting is not a bilateral decision, so your analogy is even worse.

The definition of marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman: sexual relationships between same-sex homosexuals, men and animals, men and love dolls, women and dildos etc. do not fit the definition of marriage.

No one prohibits homosexuals from finding a member of the opposite sex and getting married. If they don't want to do that, then that's also their right, same as anybody else.

You agree with this law?

Not necessarily; I think the genetic rationale is a bit weak, but I'd have to research that to be sure and it's beside my point. I was only pointing out that allowing gay marriage opens no floodgates. The idea that if society allows homosexuals to marry it cannot prevent any odd pair from marrying is nonsense.

Give some examples of what facets of the problem you want to research. If a man wants to marry his sister, should he be allowed to, yes or no?

No thanks, Dienekes. I already said that was beside my point. How about you answer a direct question for once? From an earlier post:

If same-sex marriage is made legal, what specific harms do you predict will occur? How, for instance, will existing or future hetero marriages be affected?

You seem to be missing the point. I don't disagree with "same sex marriage" because of any ill effects, but because marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can have sex with each other all they want, but that is not marriage.

So, to answer your question, there may be no ill effects whatsoever with same sex "marriage", but I still disagree with it because it doesn't fit the definition of marriage.

But your reluctance to answer my question, clearly shows that same sex marriage issue is related to the issue of a broader redefinition of marriage to include other unacceptable behaviors.

Now, answer my question if you please.

Second, the definition of democracy is that every citizen of the dêmos can vote and stand for office. Hence, the Soviet Union was not a democracy. And, voting is not a bilateral decision, so your analogy is even worse.

My analogy is worse than what analogy, your own?

The definition of marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman.

The definition of freedom is the right of any individual to pursue his own happiness provided he grants the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. You don't like homosexual marriage, don't involve yourself in a homosexual marriage. No one is forcing you to marry a homosexual. Your personal opinion, what Jesus wanted, what Santa would do, what the easter bunny thinks is irrelevant.

sexual relationships between same-sex homosexuals, men and animals, men and love dolls, women and dildos etc. do not fit the definition of marriage

How would animals sign a marriage contract? How would love dolls be able to collect their spouse's social security? How would a dildo be granted the right of not being compelled to testify against his spouse? This is the best case you can make against gay marriage? Kindergarten stuff!

No one prohibits homosexuals from finding a member of the opposite sex and getting married. If they don't want to do that, then that's also their right, same as anybody else.

Before the Supreme Court's judicial activism in the Loving v. Harding case, no state prohibitted blacks from marrying, they just had to marry members of their own race. I take it you were opposed to this radical redefinition of marriage as well. Bans on interracial marriage did, indeed, fit your Orwellian definition of the right of marriage.

your reluctance to answer my question, clearly shows that same sex marriage issue is related to the issue of a broader redefinition of marriage to include other unacceptable behaviors.

My reservations about marriage between siblings or other close relatives are based on the possibility of amplifying damaging recessive genetic traits (like Marfan syndrome, which it seems was prevalent in some pharaonic lineages). If someone wants my support for an expansion of the definition of marriage to include such unions, they need only show me that no harm will result.

But as Mike said, your insistence on "definitions" is kindergarten stuff: the definition of marriage has changed several times, the most obvious parallel with same sex marriage being inter-racial marriage. It's also disingenuous at best: you come back to it after your arguments around "the fundamental social unit" and harm to children and "they can marry members of the opposite sex, just like anyone else" have failed to stand up.

>> My reservations about marriage between siblings or other close relatives are based on the possibility of amplifying damaging recessive genetic traits

So, you think that there is a relationship between marriage and reproduction, correct?

>> the definition of marriage has changed several times, the most obvious parallel with same sex marriage being inter-racial marriage.

Inter-racial marriage has happened for thousands of years throughout the world. Same-sex "marriage" has not. Legal prohibition of the former was an aberration that denied human nature. There is no prohibition for "same-sex marriage" because same sex relationships have never been thought to fall into the category of marriage, even in societies which tolerated their existence.

One correction I have to make of my last post. The interracial marriage case was Loving v. Virginia, not Loving v. Harding.

Apparently well pleased with everything government already does, Dienekes wants government to enter the business of preserving definitions. Dienekes, you do, however, believe in a myth of the unchanging definition of marriage. Since the beginning of time, marriage has not always consisted of one man and one woman, who weren't closely related. Egypt had marriages between brother and sister, the biblical patriarchs were almost invariably polygamists, and this is only taking into consideration the marriage practices of one area of the world.

The historian, John Boswell wrote a book on homosexual marriages that did exist in Europe. You may want to check into that book before saying homosexual marriages nowhere, never.

>> Dienekes, you do, however, believe in a myth of the unchanging definition of marriage.

Incorrect. The definition of marriage may change, but all definitions of marriage involve at least this much: the union between male and female.

>> The historian, John Boswell wrote a book on homosexual marriages that did exist in Europe. You may want to check into that book before saying homosexual marriages nowhere, never.

I am aware of Boswell's "history". In any case, Boswell argues that adelphopoiia was meant to sanctify what we would call today "homosexual unions". Even if I accept Boswell's reading [I don't], the fact that these unions were not given the name of marriage (gamos) but a different name (adelphopoiia) supports the argument against same-sex "marriage".

Incorrect. The definition of marriage may change, but all definitions of marriage involve at least this much: the union between male and female.

So your case against the non-changing definition of marriage has collapsed. The definition of marriage has changed over and over again. Changing the definition to include man and man, woman and woman is well within the historical tradition of defining only to redifine and valuing only to reevalue marriage.

I am aware of Boswell's "history". In any case, Boswell argues that adelphopoiia was meant to sanctify what we would call today "homosexual unions". Even if I accept Boswell's reading [I don't], the fact that these unions were not given the name of marriage (gamos) but a different name (adelphopoiia) supports the argument against same-sex "marriage".

Who cares if its called marriage or adelpoodle? There is not one logical reason to deny homosexual couples 100% of the benefits and privileges that heterosexual married couples receive. The government has no right to make secondclass citizens of anybody on account of their partnerships.

What part of freedom do the opponents of same-sex marriage not understand?

>> So your case against the non-changing definition of marriage has collapsed.

Incorrect. My case is that marriage is between male and female, hence gay "unions" are not marriage. To see what marriage is, we have to look at what it has meant historically, and (big surprise) it has always meant male+female and never "same-sex couple".

>> There is not one logical reason to deny homosexual couples 100% of the benefits and privileges that heterosexual married couples receive.

Heterosexual couples ensure the continuity of the human race, hence deserve special consideration. Two homosexuals don't deserve special consideration just because they have sex with each other.

>> The government has no right to make secondclass citizens of anybody on account of their partnerships.

So you accept that e.g., two brothers, or a father and his daughter, etc. should be allowed to marry each other?

To see what marriage is, we have to look at what it has meant historically, and (big surprise) it has always meant male+female and never "same-sex couple".

It has meant historically at one time polygamy, another monogamy; one time incestuous, another time not. At one time the right to vote meant free males, not females. Change is only wrong if you can come up with one logical reason why it is wrong. So far you've only come up with the logical fallacy that we should not do something because we have not done it.

Heterosexual couples ensure the continuity of the human race, hence deserve special consideration. Two homosexuals don't deserve special consideration just because they have sex with each other.

According to the 2000 US Census, 27% of homosexual couples have children. Homosexuals are helping to continue the human species. Incidently, where does this leave sterile heterosexuals who wish to marry, post-menopausal women, and fertile heterosexuals who made a personal choice not to have children? Shall their marriages be banned?

So you accept that e.g., two brothers, or a father and his daughter, etc. should be allowed to marry each other?

I've already answered that question in the affirmative. More than that, I would hope, eventually, the government would get out of the marriage licensing business altogether.

>> According to the 2000 US Census, 27% of homosexual couples have children. Homosexuals are helping to continue the human species.

A homosexual couple cannot produce children, by definition. Their children are produced by extra-marital means.

>> Shall their marriages be banned?

Of course not, childless marriages are common. The definition of marriage has never included the production of children. It is just one of the social goods produced by many marriages, which is why marriage is supported by society.

>> I've already answered that question in the affirmative.

Which is why normal people will not accept a redefinition of marriage, because once same sex couples are accepted as "married", the end result is the legitimization of many disgusting practices.

A homosexual couple cannot produce children, by definition. Their children are produced by extra-marital means.

In the same way, many of the children raised by heterosexuals are produced by extra-marital means. This doesn't exclude them from being entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage.

Of course not, childless marriages are common. The definition of marriage has never included the production of children.

Yet another argument for gay marriage, I would say.

Which is why normal people will not accept a redefinition of marriage, because once same sex couples are accepted as "married", the end result is the legitimization of many disgusting practices.

I see. The opponents of same-sex marriages are the only normal people. Most of these "normal people" are religious zealots who actually believe that the bible is the inerant word of god. Why would these people be worried about the legitimazation of many disgusting practices? The bible approves of incest, as well as slavery, and human sacrifice.

>> Most of these "normal people" are religious zealots who actually believe that the bible is the inerant word of god.

Please spare me the anti-Christian rhetoric. "Gay marriage" is not practiced anywhere on earth.

Please spare me the anti-Christian rhetoric.

My rhetoric is directed not at all Christians, but those Christians who are, in my view, bigoted.

"Gay marriage" is not practiced anywhere on earth.

Is Holland on earth?

Move to Holland then with your "husband".

Move to Holland then with your "husband".

Since to this point I've shot down everyone of your pathetic arguments, I shouldn't be surprised that you would lower yourself to personal attacks. My beliefs stem from the Declaration of Independence, America is the most perfect place for me to be. Why don't you move to Saudi Arabia? You'll find a very receptive audience of fellow small-minded folks who quite agree if something didn't exist in the 8th century there is no need for it to exist now.