First of all if your saying that gay marriage somehow stops a working society because they can't reproduce then you need to re-think your position. Would you say that people who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry too?
Also, who gives a crap whether or not the baby is create through love or other processes. How does that matter? And for that matter why does it matter whether or not there is is an adult male or female in their lives as they are raised (and there probably would be such as aunts uncles and stuff, and yes i do understand family life). By that logic we would also have to take away kids from single parents. Not to mention that having a male and female role in your life doesn't affect how you do in life at all.
-"Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, the head of Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology. His testimony was given before U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
It is not dangerous and I challenge you to find me a statistic that demonstrates such.
I will refute your opinion at the end with the others. However, if you actually want to carry on a discussion, try not to insult others' inputs. You have asked for everybody's position. You then told Dragoon that his "ideal...is irrelevant" without evidence. You then say, "who gives a crap" when I post an article counter to your opinion. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask the question.
its not "proven" that the nuclear family is better, either.
Proof can be found when searched for. Read the linked document.
I'm going to pull some quotes from a 2008 article by Michael Coren entitled, "Michael Coren on Canada's biggest mistake: Gay marriage." He makes a lot of interesting points in the article. A few people have responded to this question saying that government has no place in judging what constitutes marriage. Coren said, "The state, though, should have a duty to judge and to do so based on its own interests. The most significant of which is its continued existence, meaning that we have to produce children. As procreation is the likely, if not essential, result of marriage between a man and a woman, it is in the interests of the state to encourage marriage.
If this is the case, then we should annul marriages once the women hits menopause. I mean, what's the point right? They can't have babies anymore can they?
No - read the article that I link to at the bottom. I would equate that with a divorce, and I don't think that is healthy for anybody involved. I understand that in some cases divorces improve situations, but I think the majority occur because couples are too lazy and self-involved to work through their difficulties.
Of course lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have an obliging friend have one for them, but this is hardly the norm and hardly going to guarantee the longevity of a stable society. Just as significant, it smashes the fundamental concept of a child being produced through an act of love. The donation of bodily fluid by an anonymous person, or that obliging friend again, is an act not of love but of lust, indifference, profit or a mere, well, helping hand.
I would argue that couples who have to go through this process are actually more likely to love each other, and to have thought through the decision. It's not something that will happen on accident. With the regular process however, it could just as easily be an act of lust as one of love.
For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering."
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a child raised by a heterosexual couple is any better off than one raised by a same sex couple.
On the contrary, there is. Again, read the linked article.
I agree with Dragoon1140. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
It seems like it's basically only because you've defined it that way.
As has society since the beginning of history.
If you want an interesting read on the benefits of children being raised by their two biological parents who are married to each other, then read the following:
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdfIt includes a small section on same-sex couples as well.
(Modified to fix quotes. I forgot to preview before posting)
Guest Posts