Regressives murder the unborn babies so its no surprise in their selfishness kids well being is well beneath their own selfishnes

I hope progressive Pat realises where her argument leads ?
The next step will be to make it unconstitutional to fail to recognise a Muslim's marriage 2 and 3 and 4.--would that not be "marriage equality".
If "marriage" has nothing to do with nurture and education of children, how do you rationally deny a "marriage" between sister and brother, brother and brother, father and daughter etc?
Do you think that there is no reason for the world to be split among poor third world, communist stifled second world and rich first world.?
The obvious reason is that all inventions and innovation from the steam engine to the internet and rockets to Mars have come from a culture with the nuclear family as its fundamental building block. That nuclear family provides the means to nurture and educate children to their maximum potential and it is the maximum of that potential which produces those inventions and innovations.
It is not because of what is written in a book we call the bible, which is mostly nonsense written by ancient ignorant flat earthers.
Japan is part of the first world and China and India are quickly heading that way. They have adopted the nuclear family as the basic building block of society.

That building block has been reinforced by the myth of romantic love, Jane Austen boy meets, loses, finds girl romance as well as the Christian concept of marriage.
A decent nuclear family's income is income spread over its members and, at divorce equal division of accumulated wealth is the norm. A nuclear family's income should be taxed in accordance with how it is spent and enjoyed as a unit at twice the income of both partners less a fxed amount per child. But that involves recognising the special position of a nuclear family as a procreative capble couple or a couple which has in fact bound itself to rear a chid- all of whom have nominated to be so taxed.

Shallow thinking will destroy our prosperity.

Oops, Old Man made an error. A nuclear family should be taxed at twice the tax of half of the joint income less an amount for each supported child.
Sorry.

Oh dear, same sex parenting isn't quite as optimal as a complete nuclear family.

Yet children are routinely deprived of a full set of biological parents for so many reasons. Shall we get surveyed on the banning of any form of early death, or of divorce. Are we *sure* that disallowing divorce would be beneficial? Shall parents be immune to conscription, or be exempt from work requirements that separate families? Just *how* shall we guarantee that no avoidable parent loss occurs?

It is noise anyway, as same sex couples *already* raise children. Legal and unambiguous marriage will enhance the ability of such families to maintain control of their situation if sad circumstances arise, such as severe illness or death.

As it is, parents are already allowed greater scope (even the right) to influence their children's development and outcomes through their many uncontroversial and uncontestable lifestyle choices: location, diet, peculiar religious beliefs, choice (or lack of choice) of local schools, degree of supervision, adherence to vaccination plans, teaching dental hygiene, refusing basic education in sexual health, you name it. It would be a rare gay couple that could not better the parlous conditions we tolerate for other children.

If you are *really* concerned for the children, then consider a consistent child endowment programme that is not linked to adversarial custody contests, and provide consistent family support that recognises the genuine existing diversity rather than an unachievable and imaginary ideal that has never been universal. Perhaps an ungrudging endowment would even help reduce those dreadful abortions.

Rusty Catheter

You presented an argument for gay marriage based on a perception (you have highlighted), that there exist an excess of children in society orphaned, and therefore gay couples are “needed” for this nurturing process.

Conventional heterosexual unions create children. In normal circumstances, these children are a by-product of a loving relationship.
Both the parents hold (quite naturally), a full intention of nurturing the child product, as a fruit of that loving relationship.

The key word is product. It is actually a natural biological function in the animal kingdom (which includes man), to mate with the opposite sex, to achieve the by-product of the mating process. Procreation.

The biological norm, after the mating process, and a prodigy results, is for the parents of that prodigy, to nurture the infant into self sufficiency.

If, for some reason of natural intervention by misadventure, the parents are removed from the nurturing process, the extended family of that unfortunate infant, are the next in line to take responsibility for the process of nurturing.

I fail to see why (using your logic), it would ever be necessary for homosexual same sex couples to become involved, and how that involvement would ever be necessary or beneficial to the child

Bring on the next election!
Alan B.