I visited your link. Here's my refutation of what Mr. Sprigg had to say.
I'd substitute "raising" of new life, but that's just me. Otherwise, yeah. I can go along with the rest of this.
This argument is predicated on the idea that abortion is murder. The last time I checked society hadn't come to an agreement on that yet.
I can't speak for poverty and welfare dependency, but having grown up in a suburban community, I'd say there's just as much crime - the criminals just don't get caught as often.
Notice the verb-tense usage. "Has" led to...In other words, these harmful affects have already taken place, without any redefinition of marriage.
For one thing, that's Scandinavia, and comparing societal institutions of two very different societies is akin to the Apples vs. Oranges debate. For another thing, Mr. Kurtz was not taking into consideration any other factors that may have led to Scandinavia's current issues - he just said, "look, sixty percent of first-born children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock - and they have gay marriage! The gays are to blame!"
And just how do you blame homosexuals for this? As our very own Mark has pointed out time and again, only heterosexuals can produce children. Are we blaming homosexuals for heterosexual failings now?
Go out to the local college campus. Take a good look around and come back and tell me with a straight face that heterosexual society has a commitment to sexual fidelity. Better yet, pick up a newspaper and read about what our vaunted celebrities are up to. They're societal figureheads and what are they up to these days? Here's a hint - "Oops...I Did It Again" does not refer to forgetting to pick up milk at the supermarket.
The thing is, homosexuals aren't allowed to get married. Maybe they will form lifelong commitments, maybe they won't. While they aren't, they're just as sexually free as anyone else, but if they are allowed to marry, they can understand the concept of staying loyal to their partner as well as any heterosexual can - which, granted, isn't so great these days, but once again, can you blame homosexuals for that?
So much for Mr. Sprigg. On to Mr. Kohler, whose arguments more closely resemble your own.
Yup. All well and good - the lucky kids are the ones whose parents stay together. Now how about the exceptionally large group of kids whose Daddy just screwed Mommy one night and then left, never to be heard from again? Or the ones who were born to addicts? Or the ones whose parents gave them up for adoption, for whatever reason? What about them?
Ah, social norms. Let's not forget that acceptance of homosexuality is a social norm these days. Oops.
That sounds an awful lot like what I've been saing. Thank you, Mr. Kohler.
Thank you again. You've just proved my point with this paragraph - which is an opinion and is not supported by fact. Everything from his definition of the reasons for opposite-sex marriage on down to his absurd assertion that heterosexual couples make better parents than homosexual couples is pure opinion, no fact. Thank you sincerely Mr. Kohler.
I'd say that's enough for now.
