Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
No, not at all. Go back and read my post #162.
What I said was that from a biological point, two opposite genders mate under the guise that they are the most genetically fit - each of them, the male and female, make a contribution to produce the best offspring.
With those of like gender, only one would be able to make the contribution from that particualr couple, not both. Certainly the gay couple can adopt and use a surrogate mother, but the baby would only have the genetic contribution from one gay parent, not both.
The emphasis of the species is to have both parental contribution, not one.
|
The problem with this argument is that reproduction and marriage occur independently from one another. They are not dependent on each other in any way.
If the only goal of marriage was reproduction, then this argument would hold true. However, the goal of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction for many people (those who are sterile, those who choose not to have children, and homosexuals). In fact, sexual frequency goes down after marriage, which also tends to negate this argument:
In general, surveys reveal that cohabitation is a "sexier" living arrangement than is marriage. That is, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual male couples tend to have sexual intercourse (defined as genital contact) more frequently than married couples (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983; Call, Sprecher, and Schwartz 1995; Rao and DeMaris 1995).
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1102/M...Frequency.html
Personally, I think anybody who wants to get married at all is nuts because, in my experience, it's a total nightmare, but if people (whether hetero or homosexual) want to do it, that's up to them.
I don't see the point of doing away with the term "marriage" and replacing it with civil union. It seems like an unnecessary, impractical, and expensive proposition to me.
Threaded Mode
