[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm not sure how you came away with this after reading the article I just posted.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

That seems pretty clear to me. Children can't be properly developed without the presence of a male AND a female. Black and white. Right there.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The article doesn't say that, and it's obviously untrue. Adoption is not a means of propagation.

You're correct. i misunderstood the meaning of propagation.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You missed the point entirely.

Of course, the overarching point in posting this article was yet again to prove that there are coherent, secular arguments against gay marriage which have no basis in religion.

I'll definitely concede that. But, to me, the article is saying that states recognize marriage because marriage will lead to children, which will lead to further generations of taxpayers. And that, while a very logical explanation, just doesn't satisfy the civil requirement to equal rights...once again, to me.

But his whole article is based on the precept that denial of marriage to incestuous couples, polygamists, and those that could pass a birth defect is equal to denying marriage to gays. That states don't JUST deny to gays. Well two of those three are illegal and the other is meant to prevent the propagation of special needs children.

And the second you can find me an instance of a state denying marriage to a traditional couple for reasons other than those the author mentions, I'll buy the argument.