Infinite_Loser

I never said that they were two different statements. I tried to reword it and further elaborate on what I meant, as to not be offensive.

*Points to post #137*

What do I find wrong with gay marriage? Plain and simply put, in my opinion, it undermines the core values of marriage (Not to say that marriage in most "Western" countries hasn't been undermined already, but gay marriage would further that process along).

Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the issue of children is still a driving force for marriage. I'm not sure of other countries, but I'm perfectly aware that nearly 1/3 of births which occur in the United States each year occur outside of wedlock and I'm also aware of the fact that there are adoptions for single parents. However, it is well documented that children in families which have both a mother and a father generally fair better than those which are lacking one of two (Lower suicide rates, higher test scores, females are less apt to become pregnant younger, etc.)-- As far as child development goes, there is no substitution for a mother or a father.

Also, I am perfectly aware that some marriages don't result in child-bearing, whether that be due to infertility or through the use of contraception. Infertility in marriages has been around for centuries. Some cultures solved the problem of infertility by having the male impregnate another woman (Not his wife), and then taking that child for him and his wife to raise while others had a form of our present day adoption. Of course in our modern day culture, many infertile couples choose to adopt a child, which leads me back to my first point about a child needing both a father and mother in a family situation.

(You know... I think I talked myself out of support gay adoption. Go figure...)

Contraception, in my opinion, is a bit trickier of a subject. I'm not going to go as far as some people in claiming that contraception ruins marriages (I don't really see how contraception leads to higher divorce rates), but I will say that it undermines one of the central premises of marriage; To rear children in a stable environment (That's not to say that all marriages are stable environments, but they tend to lead to better results than situations in which either the mother or father is absent). Before someone asks, the reason why I don't make too much fuss about contraception undermining marriage is because it does more good than harm (Whether that's a good or bad thing could be debated, but that's neither here nor there).

Edit: All right. I forgot to address something. While it's true that some marriages don't result in children, the majority of them do. Since when has the minority been indicative of the majority? Everything has an exception to it. That exception doesn't define the original purpose or object, though.

Not to turn focus away from the topic at hand, but I don't find it surprising that the countries with the highest divorce rates are generally the countries debating the issue of gay marriage and I don't find it surprising that most countries are strictly opposed to gay marriage. I suppose one could say that in our pursuit of "Social progress" an "Equality", we slowly destroy our own society.

Just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should be. Once again, that's just my opinion. Did that answer your question?

Not to be rude, but I prefer the term partner.

I can't speak for everyone who's been married or thinking about being married, but generally love is the driving force for marriage as opposed to the legal benefits of marriage, but that's just what I think.

No, I wouldn't, because I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I even stated in one of my posts prior that they are completely different.