HappySqurriel said:
fordy said:
HappySqurriel said:
fordy said:
Way to miss the point...
How is the birth relevant to the household a child grows up in?
|
I think you missed the point ...
If marriage is about providing the best outcomes for children doesn't it have to be proven that gay couples can provide similar or better outcomes for children before you claim that they can be married?
|
So much wrong with that question...
When did marriage become about providing the best outcomes for children?
If every degree of equal rights requires a study, I take it you have relevant studies that showed blacks were equal to whites or women were equal to men before THEY were given equal rights?
|
Tens of thousands of years ago and remained that way up until around 100 years ago where it has slowly been eroded away by a combination of mass media romanticism and progressive policies ...
Now, here is the problem, I don't see how claiming a relationship that fails to meet the definition of being married actually denies people of rights. As long as the criteria is meaningful andarbitrary there is no discrimination. "Can Procreate" is a pretty meaningful criteria that is not arbitrary given tens of thousands of years of being the primary goal of marriage.
Here is another way to look at it, if marriage is just an arbitrary celebration of love why is polygamy illegal?
|
Except that was never what it was for. The idea of marriage was a binding arrangement (or contract) that people used to trade certain assets, those mainly being daughters. I love how the zealots rearrange history to suit their agenda. Then again, if you spent centuries persecuting people who believed the Earth wasn't flat, what else can you do?
You're on a slippery slope there. Many would say "Yes. WHY is Polyhgamy illegal. Can YOU give a good reason why more than two consenting adults cannot marry?"