What has any of this to do with LGBT marriage?
They have not identified any consequences of lesbian and gay marriages on child-bearing or child-rearing. They are not related in any way.
- No straight couple is going to stop having children because the lesbians down the street are married.
- No gay man is going to marry a woman and have children just because he can't marry another man.
Moreover, it's an attack on adoptive parents
- Really, their argument which is focused entirely on biological procreation, opposes adoption--whether by straight or gay couples.
- But tellingly, they are not challenging the right of LGBT couples to adopt, which is perfectly legal in CA and many if not most other states.
If they really are saying that marriage is for procreation, then they must be consistent.
- That means, no infertile or elderly couples can marry. Domestic partnerships only.
- It also means that any potentially fecund couple that does not have children within 2 years of marriage should be downgraded from married to DPd.
They conveniently ignore many LGBT couples have children, either their own, or adopted.
- How can they draw any distinction between a married LGBT couple where one partner has kids from a previous marriage, and a married straight couple where one partner has kids from a previous marriage?
- Why do they think that the children of LGBT parents are undeserving of the protection of married parents?
1 comment:
And did you see this?
[The following is in DEFENSE of (the CofE signing up for) the "Anglican Covenant", of course!]
This has practical implications at parish level when churches have to decide how to relate to same-sex couples requesting blessing and bringing surrogate children for baptism.
Behold, the new (lesser) form of life: the "surrogate children" who happen to have parents of the same sex.
Un-frickin-believable.
Post a Comment