No, it's selfish to deny a child his/her rights to a father and mother.
It is selfish to provide a loving and stable home, for example, for a child who needs it? By denying same-sex couples the right to adoption, for example, you are the one denying children a right to parents. I've already been over how same-sex couples are just as as fit and capable as opposite-sex parents.
Because homosexual relationships (or those so-called 'same-sex marriage') are not geared towards procreation, there are no economic benefits from population growth and therefore pleasure is only final goal of the union. There is no shared domestic life as in heterosexual families, because the characteristics of a father and mother cannot substitute each other but complement each other, and therefore, gay couples cannot contribute to the full maturation of their children. Similarly, children in divorced families or single parent families are worse off in educational attainment, emotional wellbeing, childhood development, etc. Gay families are sub-optimal family structures, period.
- Should it be illegal for infertile heterosexual couples to get married?
- Should it be illegal for heterosexual couples to get married who don't want to have children?
- Should it be illegal for heterosexual couples to get married who want to have children but don't want to have biological children (e.g. they would rather adopt)?
The moment you say gay marriage and/or one of the above should be illegal, you reasoning necessarily leads to saying all of these marriages should be illegal.
Gay couples are as capable of raising children as straight couples. Alternatively, both gay and straight couples have a choice with regard to whether or not they want kids; not having children doesn't make the couple non-productive to society. In a world where overpopulation is a legitimate concern, a moral case can be made for adoption and/or not having kids. There will always be heterosexuals (~95% of the population), and there will always be reproduction. No one should be under any moral or legal obligation to reproduce.
There is no shared domestic life as in heterosexual families, because the characteristics of a father and mother cannot substitute each other but complement each other, and therefore, gay couples cannot contribute to the full maturation of their children. Similarly, children in divorced families or single parent families are worse off in educational attainment, emotional wellbeing, childhood development, etc. Gay families are sub-optimal family structures, period.
Every reputable psychological/medical group I'm aware of agrees that same-sex couples are as fit and capable as opposite-sex parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex parents.
Secondly, IVF and artificial reproduction methods is a very inefficient of method of producing children, in comparison to heterosexuals.
- These methods of reproduction work.
- As I've expounded upon above, it wouldn't matter if no artificial methods of reproduction were available to gay people.
There is no sexual complementary between homosexuals no matter what - it is the coitus act between heterosexuals in marriagethat 'seals' or completes the marriage (through body and mind) as well both individuals consenting to the act.
I'm happy that you touched on the fact that the primary purpose (>99%) of sexual acts is social bonding. I don't know if you heard, but gay people can have sex too. It should also be noted that marriage is not required for meaningful sex to occur.
The coitus act has the potential to procreate, which infers exclusivity and indissolubility.
As you've already explained, procreation is the secondary purpose (<1%) of sexual acts. An inability to procreate doesn't change anything I've already said several times.
Now, back to empathy... Just because someone's daughter or son is gay does not mean we should support gay marriage. That is being sentimental - the person is good so the anything they support or do must be linked to that goodness.
Having a son or daughter who is gay allows a parent to understand that there is no reason to deny the son or daughter his or her rights. It's an alternative when one lacks basic empathy.
Empathy is something that gay activists are hypocritically lacking, for example:
- Eich was fired from his position at Mozilla for his traditional views,
- HGTV cancels reality TV show after left-wingers ‘expose’ the stars’ pro-life, pro-family views
- Duck Dynasty Patriach gets his show boycotted by saying homosexuality is a sin.
Everyone has a right to an opinion and free speech (in the US, anyway). That right does not extend to having the right to a television show or the right to work at Mozilla. If a television network, for example, sees that a person has bigoted homophobic views that he/she disagrees with and/or thinks will affect viewership and profit, that network doesn't have to give that person a television show. If a television network wants to give a homophobe a television show, that's perfectly fine with me; I don't have to watch it. If a television network doesn't want to give a homophobe a television show, that's also perfectly fine; it's their network. Tell me again how any of the above demonstrate a lack of empathy on the part of gays and/or gay activists?
- Christian businesses boycotted/sued by gay activists for refusing to bake wedding cake
- Photographer fined and harassed for refusing to service a gay wedding
Again, having the right to free speech does not extend to a right not to be boycotted for what one says. If a business owner wants to be against gay marriage, that's perfectly fine with me; I don't have to shop there. If a group of people wishes to boycott a business because they disagree with the business' practices, that's perfectly fine too.
As a side note, I bolded "harassed" because I do not think anyone should be harassed. That's inexcusable.
- Lesbian admits she faked anti-gay ‘hate crime’ to get out of doing her homework (
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/le...gay-hate-crime-to-get-out-of-doing-her-homewo )
I don't think anyone is arguing, if it actually happened, that this is okay.
- Ex-gays bullied and threatened, and accused of being 'fakers'
While bullying and threatening people is inexcusable, it should be noted that ex-gays have not been demonstrated to exist. Many, if not most, public ex-gays have come out as still gay, and I've already touched on how all medical/psychological groups agree that conversion therapy both does not work and causes harm.
