2 ms·
If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position
by aaronbrethorst 10y ago
If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage
in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable
homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe
that there is no Equal Protection violation that would
warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a
state matter.
Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right?
The child-rearing argument is completely broken. If it was true, then marriage of divorced or widowed senior citizens would be forbidden.
- marcoperaza 10y ago>Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? I am not implying that. Did you even read the rest of my comment? Do you really think that this "gotcha! you're a bigot" game is a good way to have a frank conversation? It's really one of the most toxic elements of American politics.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoI'm not trying to play a gotcha game. I was asking a very genuine question because I know there are in fact lots of people in this country (and world) who believe just that. I was also trying to be charitable, assuming I had misunderstood you, and was seeking clarification before saying anything else.