Who said differently? We haven't been talking about children.
why aren't you talking about children?
Who said differently? We haven't been talking about children.
why are you all ignoring the child?
and
the protection the child should get?
why aren't you talking about children?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
The topic doesn't mention children. We are discussing marriage. They are two separate issues.
Why are you assuming that all marriages involve children? Why can't a child of gay parents be protected?
let me know when they have one
I guess I am here to connect the dots for you
Are you willing to argue that ANYONE applying for a marriage license should be mandated to undergo a physical and medical tests to make sure BOTH partners are able to biologically produce children prior to being allowed to marry?
For the same reason I'm not talking about Catholic dogma.why aren't you talking about children?
given it's unrelated to any question or answer prior and insinuatingly, unsupportably horsefeather filled.that child of yours deserves more protection than any two people living together
I am surprised that you don't seem to appreciate that
it is practical to assume that every man and woman who gets married will have a child or two
and
we want to help protect that child
It's not only not true, but trending in an opposing direction.I suppose that depends on what you mean by practical. It might be practical to assume that they're going to ride on a blimp, too, but it's not true. Nor is it true that every married couple will have children.
What, and give up his Socrates with a head injury methodology? :nono:Perhaps, then, you should focus on demonstrating how the prohibition of gay marriage helps protect children.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by practical. It might be practical to assume that they're going to ride on a blimp, too, but it's not true. Nor is it true that every married couple will have children.
Perhaps, then, you should focus on demonstrating how the prohibition of gay marriage helps protect children.
why do homosexuals need to be protected?
They're citizens entitled to the same privileges and immunities that all Americans are.
I said protected
Ok. And...?
I don't even know what you're getting at.
the premise here is that the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
That's one purpose of marriage, though I think that's mostly the most convenient rock to pick up and throw for your side. Seems to me that it applies to homosexual couples just as well as heterosexual ones.
homosexual couples do not have babies
homosexual couples do not have babies
Not together, no. But they may have children that they are raising together, and those children will benefit from having married (if not biological) children. This has been pointed out many times in this thread, and no one from your side has tackled it head-on that I've seen.