Calling homosexuality a "genetic defect" is begging the question. The fact that there's nothing as simple as a "gay gene" implies that it can't be so simply written off as some kind of horrible disease.
On the contrary; if same-gender attraction were strictly a matter of choice, this debate would be much simpler and would, in fact, resemble the debates surrounding the correct societal response to substance abuse. Both are antisocial behaviors with similarly nebulous negative effects on society as a whole.
Unfortunately, the best evidence I've seen suggests that same-gender attraction has a strong genetic component. This puts it in the same category as other mental disorders whose cause can't be linked to a specific gene but which are, nevertheless, caused by physical/genetic aberrations.
"Other" mental disorders? Really?
And if homosexuality is a choice, it's a self-evidently harmful one analogous to substance abuse? You do realise that propensity to substance abuse has a genetic component, too?
The original complaint I had about begging the question is that you're automatically considering homosexuality as something wrong that people need to take steps to fix. And your reply is "no, it might be like substance abuse instead.", and that's supposed to convince me that you're not begging the question?
But, leaving that aside, your argument is that marriage is for the kids, and gays don't deserve to get married because they can't adopt, or have children from previous heterosexual relationships, or (in the case of lesbians) get raped; is that correct?
Yes, marriage as a social construct is mostly about raising kids. It's about improving the odds that children will grow up in stable, loving homes with both a male and female role model.
However, the rest of your sentence is not an accurate statement of my position. Yes, homosexual people may wind up with children through various means (some of which you have listed), and we have benefits for single parents that also apply to gay single parents. However, from the perspective of what's good for society, a gay couple raising children is at best no better than a single parent raising children, and should be discouraged for the same reasons frivolous divorce should be discouraged (but, unfortunately, is not).
"Frivolous" divorce being those situations where people can't stand to be together any more, but there's no actual physical abuse or adultery? Personally, I'd prefer that marriages end
before the violence starts, but if you consider a reduction in spousal abuse to be "unfortunate", I suppose that's your right.
But what you're saying is that marriage is for procreation, and all the benefits are to encourage people to have children, but there are also lots of benefits for single people who want to have kids, so why do those gays even need marriage? I'm not sure that that makes sense. And you still haven't address why infertile heterosexuals can get married.
The consensus is that
same-sex parents do as well as opposite-sex parents.
More studies.
And more.
One more for luck. Can you expand on your reasons for thinking all these studies are flawed?
If that's the case, do you also believe that people who just happen to have a genetic defect that makes them sterile should be barred from marrying? What about post-menopausal women? What about people who just don't want children?
It's generally accepted that none of these things are a bar to marriage because, as a society, we don't actually believe that marriage is about having children, but about making a commitment to the person you love. Indeed, in 1964 the US Supreme Court decided that being able to freely marry the person you loved was an essential component of the pursuit of happiness, which is sometimes considered something of an "inalienable right".
While marriage is a commitment (some of us like to call it a covenant, which is stronger) to the person you love, that's not why it exists. You don't need the government's seal of approval to chose to bind yourself to another person. From my perspective, the gay marriage debate boils down to two things:
1) Gay couples wanting the legal benefits afforded heterosexual marriages, which they don't need, and,
2) Gay couples wanting society to recognize their union as legitimate, which isn't going to happen just because you've managed to convince a few supreme court judges.
1) Yeah, that whole "everyone should have equal rights" thing is so over-rated. Of course, you've admirably pointed out that heterosexual couples don't need those benefits, either. So what's the difference? Why should opposite-sex couples don't want kids get more benefits than a same-sex couple who do?
2) Unless, of course, you live in California, Massachusetts or Connecticut. But in the 60's inter-racial marriages required a Supreme Court judgement to be legally recognised. Just because society had normalised racism and bigotry didn't make it right.
To put it another way, would you want to allow a necrophiliac to marry a dead person? From my perspective, a marriage between two men or two women would be about as beneficial, and have about as much meaning.
There's a significant difference in the two situations which you don't seem to have noticed:
dead people cannot enter into a legally binding contract. The same goes for animals and children, before you start dreaming up more scenarios.
But you think that two people wanting to express their love for each other is meaningless and not beneficial to the participants, unless they have a particular combination of genitalia?
