Because except for siblings, none of those people are barred from marrying.Why don't I OPPOSE single people adopting, or cohabitation couples, or adult siblings.....gee Edmond, why not ask if I oppose those too?
I don't know that it has any effect on the child, but then you would have two people who are both siblings AND spouses, a doubling-up of titles and rights that the rest of us don't get. Marriage, which creates family kinship between unrelated adults for their mutual legal protection, would be redundant and unnecesary for already-related persons.What is added to the mix, if two adult same sex siblings raising a child gets married?
Of course it's not. Because (for the millionth time) marriage is for the COUPLE. It establishes NOTHING between adults and their children.Marital status is not automatically bestowed on adults raising children simply because they are raising children.
Your primary argument seems to be that allowing same-sex couples to marry will cause children to be deprived of their biological parents. You state this worry over and over.This makes no sense. I'm not quite sure what it is you're getting at.
Yet, you support allowing gay couples to adopt. Doesn't that do the very same thing? Wouldn't a gay couple who adopted a child ALSO deprive that child of its biological parents, whether that couple were married or not? Why would you support adoption for gay couples, when that causes exactly what you're worried about?
Why not oppose same-sex couples adopting, if you're worried about the relationship between the child and its biological parents? Why would you complain about something happening, and then support an act which guarantees that it will happen? This argument has no consistency or logic.