Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
And what would those be? If you're going where I think you're going, I think that could set a precedent that heterosexual couples who adopt lose whichever rights you associated with child production too. Because they didn't actually produce any children, and such. This would be a rhetorical position, as those rights would likely be given back in a legal case after the homosexual right to marriage was recognized / granted. Of course, I personally suspect this entire exchange is almost a rhetorical argument at this point. It's pretty much going to happen - its just a matter of time.
|
One hand one you say that marriage isn't solely about providing a stable environment in which to raise children. That's fine. Yet when I propose the idea of removing all child-rearing benefits from gay marriage, you then have a problem with it because it would leave very few-- If any-- Benefits left untouched. How does that work?