A rebuttal I was given to a discussion about marriage equality.

[Lost-in-FL]

In the comments area on a video regarding a debate between a Philosophy professor and a fundie scholar (?), I was told that "the purpose of gov recognition of marriage is responsible reproduction". I had never heard that before so... I asked this person to direct me to information that would validate his statement. I told the same person that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality in nature and provided with a link to a recent human neuroscience journal that stated that "homosexuality is a normal sexual variance linked to brain biology". This was the response;

The studies have often been performed by gay scientists or supporters, have skewed samplings, and have results that could not be reproduced. The government legislates societal laws for the purpose of a return benefit. In marriage, the benefit is responsible reproduction. The best environment for children is that in which both of their biological parents are married and in the home with an active role in raising them. That is impossible with same-sex marriage.

Should I bother?

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Your correspondent seems to rely on the old strategy of Proof by Repeated Assertion

Don't bother.

[Lost-in-FL]

6. Yup... It is not worth the trouble.nt

[trotsky]

2. Seems to me government's recognition of marriage...

is solely to promote stable family units. There are PLENTY of children available for adoption that (thankfully) gay couples are more than willing to take on. Giving those kids a stable, happy home can mean the difference between a life of crime and productive participation in society.

[Lost-in-FL]

7. I agree. nt

[LeftishBrit]

3. Probably not worth bothering

There is of course no reason why gay parents cannot both 'be in the home with an active role in raising their children', and the only reason they might not be able to be married is because the state might not allow it due to just this sort of prejudice! And gay parents have generally made an active effort to become parents through either IVF or adoption; their children are not accidents.

There is lots of evidence from research that children of gay parents do at least as well as chldren of heterosexual parents.

In any case, reproduction is not the only purpose of marriage - should older or infertile people not be allowed to marry? Or those who just choose not to have children?

But it sounds as though this person has already made up their mind and nothing will change it.

[Lost-in-FL]

8. I am in a childless marriage, not by choice.

so I understand your point perfectly. All I think of is how cruel of them to justify telling someone that they are not entitled to adopt for whatever reason or that they cannot have their own children!! You really have to be a heartless SOB to tell people who can or cannot raise children, specially those children who could benefit from the love others are willing to invest on them.

A waste of time to answer these people.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. YouTube comments...

...make some non-proud homeless persons (and their carpets) look reasonable.

[Lost-in-FL]

9. Ouch! nt

[immoderate]

5. A two syllable, compound word for...

"bullshit" is what I'd say. B-)

--imm

[Lost-in-FL]

10. Really... lol... why even bother? nt

[onager]

11. Not worth the trouble, but...

My personal view of this issue is simple (and probably simple-minded), but I'm sticking to it: are gay Americans citizens just like me and everybody else? If so, then they have the same rights as me and everybody else. Including the right to inherit a loved one's property, which requires govt. recognition via marriage and doesn't have a flipping thing to do with "responsible reproduction."

[brooklynite]

12. Simple response...how does Gay Marriage have any impact on Heterosexual marriage...

...unless the commenter trully believes that hetersexuals are going to choose their sexual preference based on government policies.

[Kerrytravelers]

13. One simple question to ask this YouTube moran:

If a couple does not have children, and therefore are not responsibility reproducing, should the government then dissolve their marriage?

I don't expect an answer, just more circular repeated assertions.

Good luck! :hi:

[Deep13]

14. Whole lot of unsubstantiated assumption.

If the methodology is sound, whether the researcher is gay or straight is irrelevant. The government formulates and enforces societal laws so that people are not unnecessarily hurt. In marriage, the benefit is that the two people involved want to be married. There is no evidence to support the claim that a heterosexual, nuclear family is the best possible environment for children. I submit that the best environment is a multi-generational household with collateral relatives. Even if the nuclear family is best, there is no reason why gay couples cannot do so if a third person is added for the sole purpose of assisting with the physical reproduction.