At the core of the anti-SSM argument, as I understand it, is the belief that man/woman marriage is qualitatively different from gay unions; barring gays from marrying under state law is a way to recognize that difference
Apparently, Allah Pundit doesn't understand the core of the conservative argument against same sex marriage.
1. Same sex marriage will make our culture more dangerous.
2. Heterosexual marriage is potentially procreative. Homosexual marriage never is. The state has an interest in the best arrangement for rearing children; it has none in who you get your jollies with.
3. Children have a right to be raised by their own mother and father.
4. The above means that if you allow the word "marriage" to cover anything, then eventually reality will force you to come up with a new word so you can distinguish those relationships that are potentially procreative.
posted on 03/14/2013 7:51:25 AM PDT
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
#3. is your most powerful argument in today’s society, but I’m intrigued by #1. Can you elaborate and provide details?
posted on 03/14/2013 8:06:13 AM PDT
(First, Do No Harm)
Same sex marriage will make our culture more dangerous.
Exactly! Another concern I have had since the beginning of the gay marriage argument has been gay foreignor rights to live in the US if they marry a gay American.
[then eventually reality will force you to come up with a new word so you can distinguish those relationships that are potentially procreative. ]
The term you're looking for is Socio-biological Fitness.
In simple terms, Fitness is measured as reproductive success over multiple generations of reproductively viable offspring.
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
"Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
posted on 03/18/2013 7:33:02 PM PDT
("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson