AI is case where arguably a (potential) child is deprived. You justify this by saying that ‘potential’ children have no rights, OK fine. It raises the question of whether a fertilised egg is an actual or a potential person, but OK.
I don’t even know what to say to this. No, non-existent beings have no rights. They don’t exist. Existence is the basis for any right. You cannot assign rights to non-existing beings. To suggest you can is ludicrous. Moreover, to suggest a non-existing being can be deprived of anything is also ludicrous, because the definition of deprivation is the removal of something that a being has (whether that be a possessed object, or a possessed right). No being, no possessing, no deprivation.
Not from what I have read. Many societies have blessed same sex or sexless or sterile marriages.
I guess we’ve read different material. From everything I’ve read, the institution of a same-sex marriage is a 20th century invention. Can you provide an example of where this is not the case? Moreover, even if there have been pockets of this throughout history, that it is unusual, and not the norm, speaks to my assertion (that a male-female union is the historical understanding of marriage).
Evidence for your assertion? Not just in christian culture, but worldwide?
My evidence is that the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage is a recent convention, not an historical one. That there is a general lack of such recognition throughout history is my evidence.
Not entirely independent, but clearly different. Hence why you corrected yourself earlier.
Yes I stated as much.
Because the state exists for the benefit of the people, not vice versa. So when a large number of people are moving in together, forming new family units (with or without children) and sharing lives and property, it makes sense to have a legal institution covering the various needs and situations that arise as a result.
“The benefit of the people” is a broad statement. People moving in together doesn’t necessarily necessitate anything. “Forming new family units” presupposes that a family is just anyone who decides they want to co-exist. This is decidedly false, as the formation of families has historically been exercised through contract, written or verbal, in view of witnesses. Merely moving in together doesn’t make you a family. Merely desiring to be a family doesn’t make you a family. A merely loving one another doesn’t legitimate a marriage contract.
What do you mean by ‘actual’ parents? Those who raise you day to day? If so, as long as the child is raised safely and suitably, and ideally has regular contact with the biological parents unless there is excellent reason not to, I don’t see that it is our business.
If it’s not our business, then it’s also not the government’s business. But the welfare of children is the government’s business, and by extension ours. That’s why we’re having this debate to begin with.
Since same sex families occur in nature, great, we agree!
Support for this? But beyond the question of what occurs
in nature, that isn’t what I meant by “natural” and “unnatural.” This term has various meanings. It can be used in the sense you understood it (i.e., the organic world about us), but it can also be used in the sense of the proper being and act of a thing (i.e., human nature vs rock nature). I used it in the latter sense. It is improper to compare what occurs various other animals species to the human specie. That would be like saying that since the praying mantis eats its mate, it would be perfectly legitimate for a human to eat its mate. It’s a horrifyingly erroneous comparison.
Ah, so we should take your word over theirs as regards how they feel? :ehh:
Not mine. No. But I would expect you to hear what many of them have to say about it, instead of completely disregarding it as “complaining”, as you do. I have only repeated their view on it.
So they deserve the same legal status as a family.
Because they can be good parents? So, absolutely no other considerations?
a) There is no reason why a child raised by a same sex couple would not have role models from both genders, even their biological parents. See co-parenting for example
Role-modelling isn’t the same thing as parenting.
Again, there is no reason why this need be the case, nor have you produced a concrete example where the child has a better option. Unless you are arguing that same sex parents are worse than non-existence or the orphanage.
But it is, as evidenced by those who have said as much about themselves. And this isn’t just a claim made by children of same-sex couples. It is the same claim made by children adopted by single parents. And let’s not even begin to speak about the ravages on children wrought by divorce. And it is this way, necessarily, because the need for a father and a mother is an inherent human trait, just by virtue of how we come to be.
