> > Another irrelevant argument is that children from same-sex
> > households score equally well in outcomes such as maths,
> > sport, and social skills. Even granting that highly dubious
> > claim, such research would say precisely nothing about the
> > primal harm we have done to the inner life of a developing
> > child by depriving him of a mother.

Well this puts it pretty bluntly: 'my prejudices trump your science.' The point of all the social research on children headed by same-sex couples is that there is no "primal harm". When people cling to this view they are letting their preconceptions rule. When doctors of medicine promote prejudice over research, it's terrifying.

The marriage-is-all-about-children argument conveniently ignores one fact. When a couple marries, in some form or other they pledge to each other permanence, mutual support and love: "Do you promise to love, honour and obey?" "I do." Not "Do you promise to love, honour, obey and bear children?"

The people re-defining marriage are the anti-SSM crowd, and they're doing it for their own rhetorical purposes. Marriage is a covenant between two individuals, before their families and society, possibly (though with decreasing frequency) in the sight of their god. It's not a covenant involving children, born or unborn. Saying that "marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children" is redefining marriage. Making marriage available to same-sex couples is not.

I don't think that argument will stack up. What about all the kids that are deprived of their mother or father in so called :partners" Every thing is honky dorry until one or the other has had enough.
Gay marriage could end up more lawful than shackin up.
The land is full of bastard kids.
Have a good think about it.

David,

It is the solid logical type of arguments you put forward, without personal abuse or invective, that will ultimately defeat this push by the homosexual lobby. A lobby which so far seems only able put together abuse, invective and rabble like slogans in support of it's 'cause'.

The vast majority listen to and understand reason rather than illogical sloganeering and rants.

Well done.

I like Davids mesage about socalled Gay marraige but what about Lesbins and kids?? Theres some in my block and their BOTH great Mum's. Maybe ban marraige for Male Sodomites but not for Lesbins??

ALL kids need a mum (or 2)

Wouff

Marriage is a covenant between a husband and wife as defined by tradition and indeed by article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now unless homosexual couples can state who is the husband and who is the wife I don't think they fit any definition here.

You're mistaken, the attempt to change marriage, is being undertaken by the homosexual lobby

David's arguments really are honored more in the breach that the rule.
I do agree that just because things may happen anyway it's not a reason to legitimise them.

If concern that children have real involvement with parents of both genders is really the point then there are much bigger issues around than the small number of of children who may end up being raised by married same sex couples.

Rather than deny marriage to same sex couples the question could be how to maximise the chances for children have access to constructive adult role models of both genders regardless of the circumstances or personal qualities of their parents?

R0bert