I'm not particularly interested in the UN's contemplation of what a family is. An unmarried couple has a harder time adopting and then caring for a child then a married one. If we allow homosexuals to marry, suddenly there would be more married couples - many of whom would turn to adoption to raise children. This would decrease the number of children in foster care. Look at the stastics. Children who are adopted tend to fare better and commit fewer crimes than children who remain in the foster system. Stimulating adoption and getting as many kids out of foster care as possible has beneficial affects for society.
You are not particularly interested in the udhr's definition of family, eh?
It is the
BASIS of marriage's legal impetus. It legitimizes the
NATURAL SOCIAL ORDER BY WHICH ALL PEOPLE COME INTO BEING.
So, one can very well make an argument that apes can care for human children (and everyone can be like tarzan) and it would be entirely irrelevant to marriage as a legal institution.
Clear?
Is something that occurs during anal sex, which is not unique to homosexuality.
In homosexual relationships -- it is the rule rather than the exception, no?
And insulting my intelligence isn't going to help yours, either. Please stop.
I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm criticizing you for dishonesty.
All right, I'll try to put it in terms you'll understand.
Marriage encourages monogamy. In a (faithful) monogamous relationship, two people only engage in sexual relations with each other. If they only engage in sexual relations with each other, an STD will only be passed if one of them already has it. If, on the other hand, they do not have a monogamous relationship, and instead go out and have sex with other men, the chances they'll engage in sexual relations with someone who has an STD increases.
The more partners, the higher the risk. The fewer the partners, the lesser the risk. There are other risks involved too, of course - protected sex vs. unprotected sex, disease screening, etc.
You need not have multiple partners. Merely exposing your penis to fecal matter on a regular basis, not to mention your blood stream is enough to cause infections of biblical proportions.
You said:
"If we allow homosexuals to marry, suddenly there would be more married couples - many of whom would turn to adoption to raise children."
A huge non-sequitur by any reasonable standard.
You have failed to derail even one of the reasons I've offered. A recap:
I stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would create stable family units more capable of adopting children. You countered with several quotes from the UN. I asked for a thesis to tie those quotes together. You countered by stating that the evidence shows what the UN considers a family to be. What the UN considers a family to be still does not address the issue - that allowing homosexuals to marry allows them to create a more stable platform for adoption.
Good grief!
Just because a couple (heterosexual or otherwise) is legally married
DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY THEM TO ADOPT A CHILD OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.
It is explicitly stated there in the uncrc. The best interest of the child is the
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION -- specifically, foster parent(s) that can provide continuity to his cultural, religious, (etc)
IDENTITY.
That the prospective foster parents should be married was not even mentioned -- although it logically follows from the above.
I stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would promote monogamy amongst the homosexual community, decreasing incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases. You countered by offering that homosexuality causes sexually-transmitted diseases. I offered that there are few, if any, sexually-transmitted diseases that cannot be passed through both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. You countered by mentioning exposure to fecal matter. I countered by stating that anal stimulation is not unique to homosexual practices - many heterosexual couples indulge in anal intercourse. You've so far clung to the idea that homosexual practices cause sexually-transmitted diseases when the reality is that any sexual practices can spread sexually-transmitted diseases - and promiscuous sexuality, which is discouraged by monogamous marriage, increases the incidence of transfer of sexually-transmitted diseases.
What nonsense.
Exposure to fecal matter would cause infections. You do not need to get it from somebody else.
You have been watching too many porn movies if you are suggesting that anal sex is a popular alternative in heterosexual couples. It is popular with gay men only.
And while it is true that most sexual practices transmit disease, the probability increases with homosexuality. It is not a coincidence that the incidence of aids occurs more among gay men.
You did not actually address my points on quelling the dissent of a vocal minority or putting the debate to rest so that other matters can be discussed, countering with a statement that homosexual marraige would contradict the rights of children according to the UN (your point is an attempted refutation of my position as a whole, not a direct response to either of my points listed in this paragraph). I asked what my priorities have to do with the discussion, along with stating that I would prefer to keep this debate civil. You suggested that discussing adoption in view of the rights of homosexuals rather than in view of the rights of children shows skewed priorities. I have requested that you demonstrate this, as I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry - and adopt - does not violate the rights of children in any way. In the UN document you posted earlier, Article 20, Section 3 specifically mentions adoption as an acceptable means for the care of children deprived of their families, which reinforces my own point.
Kindly look at the underscored/bold words in my post. I do that to emphasize a point.
Adoption is done according
TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD. The best interests of the child is an environment that would provide
CONTINUITY in the childs cultural, religious, etc.
IDENTITY.
To put it simply -- adoption is, by nature,
DISCRIMINATORY. In looking after the best interest of the child,
NOT ALL PROSPECTIVE FOSTER PARENTS ARE EQUAL. The only thing that is equal is that heterosexual couples are
EQUALLY discriminated as homosexual couples.
Capice?
Btw, you have a right to pursue your own happiness. The state is not obliged to grant it to you.
In review, you have failed to demonstrate how any of my points is a non-sequitur. I have asked you on at least one occasion to keep this conversation civil. I will ask again. Please cut out the disparaging remarks, they contribute nothing to this debate.
You have failed to understand the uncrc and the udhr. Consequently, your argument is a collection of disjointed non-sequiturs that point to different directions all at once.
You have made these arguments before. I have roundly refuted every single one of them. What makes you think presenting them again would have a different outcome?
