Then why do childless couples get the benefits?<quoted text>
No, there won't.
Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing.
That's because you are just a homophobe trying to make his bigotry seem noble.But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults. And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
BS. You're just a homophobe. You haven't shown a single way gay marriage would harm society.Same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society, which is why we oppose it.
Rose's Law:Let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do. Even Chongo.. But, the issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Private reasons for entering into marriage—or any other relationship for that matter—vary widely. But the public purpose has remained virtually unchanged throughout human history. Why is it that this unique relationship is called “marriage,” and nothing else is? It is because a union between a man and a woman has been humanly and historically universal. It is to bestow a singular place in society for a natural family. Conceiving, raising, and maintaining a family. Why is it that every society throughout human history has favored the relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another? In each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Rose's Law...Spare me your nonsense about morons, you shout that because that is an inconvenient truth that you cannot dodge. No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
Why? If the issue were raising children, they could do that without getting married. Just tell us how the children would benefit from the couple not being able to marry.Never, until the last few milliseconds of human history, has any society had homosexual marriage. What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution. Since we cannot possibly understand the scope and ramifications of this issue, might I suggest that same sex couples wishing for marriage move to some of the states that HAVE legalized it, and see how it works out, instead of attempting to force the issue into national legislation ?
Rose's Law...The results could be disastrous for this nation, and this nation is in dire straits, already...
You go on about children because you don't have an argument against gay marriage. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and they do. They do a fine job. And they can marry and not raise children. Gay marriage and gay couples raising children are separate issues.