Grey Acumen said:
What you're missing is that tax breaks have nothing to do with the religious side of things. The whole point is to protect society as a whole, of which a key aspect is supporting the upbringing of children, which will be the future society. Marriage, and specifically religious marriage is for a man and a woman to commit to a relationship that will result in bearing and raising children together. The tax breaks are to support and strengthen the relationship BEFORE the child is born so that it is already a solid foundation with which to raise the child. Of course then you get into the whole issue of comparative abilities of child raising, and you hear people putting out cases about how they were raised by single parents just fine, or cases where a man and a woman turned out to be horrible parents, etc etc, blah blah, but a man and a woman in a committed relationship are still going to be the best option for child raising, and religion has nothing to do with that. 1) A marriage between a man and a woman can typically be expected to result in offspring, maybe not immediately, maybe not always, but typically. If you were to force this issue, then that would put unreasonable strain on the relationship between the man and woman that is needed as the stable base for child raising, which is why you base the tax breaks on the marriage, not the presence of children. Now, there are of course a few arguments against this, such as adoption, artifical insimenation, and sterile couples, which I will address next. 2) Even for those couple that cannot bear children naturally, there is still adoption and artificial insimination. For these cases, gay couples technically have just as much of a shot as straight couples. Except I turn back to original statement that a man and a woman is still the best way to go for child raising. You can bitch at me all you want, my reasons aren't religious, so harping on that isn't going to get you anywhere, but you still don't have a chance at changing my views on that. Of course, this is where the main arguments come up involving the single parents, whether by death or by seperation, and I get the indignant questions of "so since my dad raised me alone, I'm less of a person?" Quite frankly it's ridiculous. I never said it's IMPOSSIBLE, I said it's BETTER, and don't give me this shit about "Oh, so I would have been better off if my mom stuck with her abusive husband" and again, no, quit being a retard. The issue is that with the same individual emotional stability of two people involved in childraising, a team of a man and woman will always have the best range of skills and perspectives to handle whatever comes up. That's why a marriage between a man and a woman should be supported. What this all boils down to is that the purpose of States laws recognizing and supporting marriage is that you cannot make a law that forces people to reproduce and raise children, but that action is still essential to society, so all it can do is encourage those actions. |
Very Nice post Grey. Thank you. I apreciate your time and effort.
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison
"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself