Gay Marriage Goes Before US Supreme Court

Special rights for hetrosexuals, I get it. You want special rights for hetrosexuals.

As to children being the "frequent" result of hetrosexual sex? You've got to be kidding, right. Average couple has about 2 kids. So they would have to have sex three times over their marriage to qualify as children being the "frequent" result.

Your argument also implies that hetrosexual couples who have NO CHANCE of having children (medical conditions, choice by surgery) should have special rights compared to gay couples (even though lesbian couples could still produce children through invetro).

Special rights for hetrosexual, non-child bearing couples. That is your argument.

 

You now make even less sense. Gay couples are more likely to adopt. That solves a lot of problems without causing procreation.

 

Your the one not making any sense. Your comment seems to have no relevance whatsoever to my post you chose to quote. If you want to claim why my post makes no sense, you should at least try to string together a few words to state why.
And Ive never seen any evidence that gays are more likely to adopt than people who are not gay. I suspect you just made that up. AND EVEN if it is true, that's because gay couples cant procreate. AND WHILE heterosexual sex has a strong natural tendency to lead to procreation, gay sex has absolutely no tendency whatsover to lead to adoption.

 

Its like you didn't even read what you just quoted and responded to. Or are you just not able to comprehend? Whether they are heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant, like I said and you quoted.

Get yourself a dictionary. "Frequently" has no connotation that it is the majority of times. And in this context, heterosexual sex frequently leads to procreation in comparison to homosexual sex that NEVER leads to procreation.

Yes, encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry, reduces the number of children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging homosexual couples to do so does not. And ANY TWO consenting adults could produce children using in-vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers. My dog and I could do so. If you want a special preference for gays and lesbians regarding adoption and in=vitro and surrogacy, you need SOME justification for doing so. The fact that they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad isn't such a justification unless you can draw some connection between rubbing genitals and children. The relation among heterosexual couples is as obvious as it is nonexistent among homosexual couples

 

Sorry. The overwhelming majority of hetrosexual sex does not lead to procreation - it is usually just a form of recreation. Unless you think married couples only have sex once every 18 months.

 

Get yourself a dictionary. "Frequently" has no connotation that it is the majority of times. And in this context, heterosexual sex frequently leads to procreation in comparison to homosexual sex that NEVER leads to procreation.

 

Second line of the post I quoted. I didn't think the rest would be very interesting to talk about.

As for adoption: Please tell me about this wonderful method you found by which I can impregnate men, because that's the only way I can conceive of gay couples not being more likely to adopt.

 

One only needs to look at the black population in the US. LOWER rates of marriage than whites and yet they have HIGHER birth rates than whites. Single black women have a higher birth rate than married black women. And it was only 50 years ago that most states made it a crime for a man to engage in sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife. Government doesn't make it a crime to engage in sexual relations without a marriage to increase procreation and instead do so to inhibit procreation.

Well, there is the much more frequent option chosen by gays of not having any children. AND the much more frequent option of having a child from a previous heterosexual relationship, like the majority of homosexual couples with children today. Your not the sharpest crayon in the box.

 

Correlation =/= Causation. It's also entirely naive to believe that the law is going to stop people from procreating. People like unprotected sex.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that gay couples are more likely to have adopted children than any other means by which you can have children. I'm saying that they are proportionally more likely to adopt children than straight couples are.

 

Well... at least those reality shows.




​

 

No one claimed the law stops procreation. I said it inhibits it. It reduces the rate of procreation. 50 years ago when states made it a crime to engage in sexual relations without being married, I suspect only 5-10% of kids were born to single mothers. Now that we only encourage marriage, almost half of kids are born to single mothers.

I know what you said. I don't believe you. I think you made it up. Most gays don't have children, and most that do, have them from a previous heterosexual relationship and have no need to adopt.