Same sex marriage and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

Marriage has never applied to homosexual couples and shouldn't apply to homosexual couples any more than pregnancy should apply to men or prostate cancer should apply to women. Civil unions allow for both homosexual and heterosexual couples to have the same rights without there being a need to change the concept of marriage. I really don't see the problem.



Then that's something to lobby for instead of gay marriage. It would benefit both heterosexual and homosexual couples and makes perfect sense, unlike lobbying to change the concept of marriage because for some reason homosexual couples feel underprivileged since the concept doesn't apply to them.

Yes it's important that a child gets a loving home, however it's also important that child is raised in a healthy environment that provides it with all its physical and mental needs. Based on my 29 years of experience living on this planet and encountering numerous other people, I'm convinced that not only a loving home but a healthy father figure and a healthy mother figure are essential for a child's normal development and a single parent or a same sex couple just can't offer that. I would be willing to support adoption by single parents of same sex couples if there was any conclusive evidence that a child can develop normally without both a healthy mother figure and a healthy father figure but thusfar I'm far from convinced... at all. In fact, the more I observe the people around me the more I notice what appears to be a correlation to unhealthy role models by parents (eg; a weak-willed parent, an overly dominant parent, a bi-polar parent, a psychopathic parent, an alcoholic parent, a deceased parent, ...) and various mental conditions.



How do you believe it would have affected your development towards adulthood if you had in fact found such a home, same sex or not?

please read your sources before you post them. That is a collection of quotes about development; some of them aren't about conception at all, and I don't think that they support your claim that 'at conception a new, individual human person has come into being.'

Just out of curiosity, what do you think happens to that 'person' if it splits into twins or triplets - are identical twins really just one person in two bodies? If not, which embryo is the original person and which is the new one - or are they both 1/2 of the original person, and 1/2 new person?

As for 'life' beginning at conception, that's just silly. The sperm was alive, the egg was alive, the zygote is alive, the embryo is alive, etc. The question is NOT about life; it's about personhood. Nor is it about being 'human' (adjective), but rather about being A human (noun). We cut out living, genetically unique human (adjective) tissue on a regular basis in the hospital; it's called cancer. It is human, but not A human. It is alive until we remove it from its host body (I am NOT saying that a zef is like cancer; I AM saying that we need to be careful with our terminology). We also routinely slice and dice living humans with functional hearts in ways that will kill all remaining function in their bodies, and it is considered by most to be the one beautiful thing that can come out of braindeath.

Like I said before, the second link that I posted before is really a good reference on the different views, with lots of good information, and I've seen it praised by both pro-life and pro-choice people in the past.

edit:
Today at work a 12 year old girl came into the laboratory for some prenatal testing. She planned to carry the pregnancy to term.
Frankly, I hope she miscarries. It would be far better for her physically, and probably mentally as well in the long run. Rape, including statutory rape, is one of the few situations where I go from 'pro-choice' to 'pro-abortion.'

Again, there's no objective way to determine when exactly life begins and where to draw the line between abortion and murder. One could just as well argue that a human only becomes aware of himself after 2 to 3 years since no one ever remembers ANYTHING from prior to that age and thus there is no real moral objection against killing a 1-year-old because he's not aware of himself yet. Why make the distinction between a 1-year-old and a foetus? It's all arbirary, really...

On same sex relationships

Thank you for proving the point that same-sex marriage begs the question of the family and children. You have just proven the slippery slope analogy of the OP.



Interesting view, it seems to me that you are making the marriage and the family is a social institution based around the procreation of children.



Sorry this is totally incorrect. We discriminate along all sorts of lines when deciding who can legally marry and almost all cases reflect the role of the married couple in relation to the procreation of children. It is true that over the past century we have undermined the centrality of procreation. This has occurred with disastrous consequences. There is a clear and irrefutable link between the undermining of the centrality of procreation within marriage (and relationships in general) has led to declining birthrates and an increase in divorce. As to your statement relating to the noncentrality of procreation, despite being undermined, it is still central to the legal definition or marriage. We do not allow first cousins to marry under any circumstances, due to the birth defects they would pass down to their children. Even if the cousins are infertile or sterilized, they still cannot marry.

We also do not allow relationships with more than two partners to marry, using the logic relating to same sex marriage, then those who support polygamy would also have to allowed to marry. Some states also restrict marriage from those who have contracted sexually transmitted diseases. It is illegal to marry more than one person. If one sees the family as being central to the institution of marriage, then these restrictions make sense. I do not oppose the right of same-sex couples to be in a relationship but marriage clearly under the legal definition is related directly to the procreation of children.



Yes we do, we allow heterosexual partners who cannot reproduce to marry, there are several reasons for this. For example, it is very difficult to discover who is infertile and most people who are do not know they are. Some marry without any desire to have children, we cannot read minds however and the state, despite having a vested interest the couple’s having children has no real way of enforcing a restriction. As to the elderly, the numbers are just so low as to not be really worth a restriction.



The same couple be argued for multiple partner, those infected with syphilis and incestuous relationships. The state however, has reserved the right to restrict certain people from marriage. There is ample evidence that children require both a male and a female parent for proper development. I do not doubt that same sex couples would be loving to children, their nature as same-sex couples however means that there are some objective criteria that do not meet.

On Abortion



I was not arguing that with those sources. Please look at what I said, it was relating to life beginning at conception. I am not going to argue that an embryo is a fully functioning human being with complete faculties.





Interesting point, the better question is; what is an acorn to an oak tree?



Well your statements relating to fetal pain and the third trimester are mistaken. There have been studies that have concluded that the fetus can feel pain by eight weeks. The brain stem of the child is quite developed by week 8. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234. Considering how aggressively you have defended pain as an objective criteria the question needs to be asked; does this change your views? Another interesting question is, if a fetus is in the third trimester, a point which you have advocated as the barrier of personhood, does this meant that you believe that the child has the right to life at this point and that you are against most late-term abortions?

Lip and tactile responses are also apparent at seven weeks. So we have a heartbeat, pain, and brain waves…. How much more does it take? If you do not think that we are dealing with a child, I recommend that you watch ‘The Silent Scream’ which clearly shows the truth of the matter. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from Heritage House '76 at http:www.heritagehouse76.com). (Before criticizing the film, consider that it has been defended by a good many journals as being factually accurate, the papers can be found from National Right to Life).

In General

Some people have argued for exceptions to the ant-abortion position; rape and a woman's health for example (both represent only a fraction of abortions). I am not sure how establishing points at which a person can have an abortion in any way justifies the sheer amount of abortions that take place.

Ok, we finally run into an argument rather than BS.

If abortion is murder, how can you justify abortion in cases of rape, or really at all?

I've already advanced arguments against this point, but it seems like you have been inconsistent and then hiding it under the smokescreen of responsibility.


No, preventing unwanted childbirth should be the goal. Especially for teens. They don't have any of the resources for keeping their children.

Um.... ok? Salofilosoof, here are two problems:
1) From what another poster has said, there isn't evidence that gay couples are worse parents.
2) Your entire analysis is on a mistake. The earlier poster stated that they would rather have had a loving home that was a same sex couple than no loving home. Given that choice, it is better to settle with the loving home than hope for the ideal home and find no home at all. I've made this point earlier to 91 (although he failed to understand what I was saying)
3) Most homes are not ideal anyway, because most parental role models have failings, and so, a gay home might be able to be better than some straight homes.

That being said, I really don't believe much in the 29 years of experience of anybody. I know that there are lots of people terribly out of touch with reality.

What the hell? Begs the question? No, I responded to earlier comments on the quality of parenthood between couples. You claimed I was seeking to "experiment without concern for children", I was pointing out that same sex parents would likely have qualities making them fit to adopt regardless due to variations within populations.

I didn't prove anything, and if you want to shove your ideology in my mouth, you had better explain your interpretation more clearly. Your history of putting out complete and utter bullsh** due to your personal inability to be intellectually honest is so bad, that I can't take you at face value when interpreting another person's post who you disagree with.


No, I am responding to you. I am making the marriage a social institution. I am making the family a social institution. I am not setting up a goal like you are. Even further, I wouldn't make the goal of marriage or the family to be the procreation of children, but the well-being of all parties in the relationship.


Irrefutable link? There are so many explanatory causes, 91! (Certainly more causes than an "irrefutable link" should be taken as face value given) Even further, declining birthrates isn't actually that bad of an issue. As it stands, I think that a lot of the rise in divorce is really due more to women's equality than so many other factors, the reason being that if women have money, they don't have to put up with all this crap if they really really don't want to.

Right, but we also allow old couples to marry, even though neither is fertile. If reproduction where the issue, then age limits would also be the issue. I think as well, society would object to an incestuous relationship just because it is incestuous, simply due to a disgust we have on the issue.

In any case, I don't see any reason to believe your fact-free bluster. You keep on asserting this, but why on earth should anybody give a damn? I mean, hell, if most marriages are not centered around the "right reasons" such as procreation, then why should you care if those marriages stay together if you think they are fake anyway? (Or are you just protesting that lack of centrality of procreation causes people to seek *happiness* which is a terrible terrible thing)


Honestly, I think that our legal system is a messed up jumble. In the past, we have had laws about marriage set up for eugenic reasons, so trying to identify clear and central purposes to law just isn't relevant.

As for polygamy, it's beside the point, but I don't really see a reason to care whether they marry either. Polygamous couples actually can be families, and historically they have often been families with most societies having some history of polygamous practice, this is including ancient Jewish society as we do see harems in the Old Testament. I really don't expect polygamy to ever be common. Even further, there is an objection unlike that of gay marriage, and that objection is that of a multi-person contract and the difficulties of that multi-person contract.


Ok? But marriages between the elderly and older individuals do occur. Ways to require children with a marriage are also not difficult. Finally, ending a marriage because of the infertility of one of the parties is not an odd thing, and historically was common, but now we don't see it as being as big of an issue.


And if the state restricts people, it has to do so on secular grounds. If it does this on secular grounds, it has to do this according to current views of marriage. Our current view of marriage has been centered on the two people entering the relationship for a long-time, and that's actually the basis of that California legal decision, where the youtube video that you posted, didn't seem to get what the judges were saying. If this view of marriage is the mainstream view of marriage, then there is no mainstream reason to prohibit gay marriage.

Right, but there are also criteria that can be measured that some of these couples could still surpass straight-couples on. Even further, as I already stated, a gay couple is better than the state to raise children. The state fails all measurements, so... if we have a choice between the state and a gay couple, we ought to pick the gay couple unless they are abusive or something.


Not an oak tree. It is a seed.


No, it actually isn't mistaken. Unlike your study, the one that is being referenced in the NBC article(which I referenced instead of the medical article for reasons of ease of understanding) is actually a meta-analysis. It analyzed multiple studies. That being said, here's another article: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scis ... alpain.pdf It states that the neural pathways needed for feeling pain do not exist and function until somewhere before 30 weeks. So, while the brain stem may be developed, we do not have sufficient development.

Also, as mentioned earlier, I consider pain relevant because it fits in with other markers, but not because I actually think that pain begins when the neurological developments are in place, as the phenomenon of pain is more complex than that as I have mentioned earlier, instead I am seeking to be relatively conservative on the issue. If the brain stem is the only part developing at first, and it is the least important in terms of considering something a "person", then we can see a lot of "brain function" that isn't that relevant, which supports my basic point. The brain stem is kind of like the lizard-like part of all of this.

That being said, I am not very much in favor of abortions that late in the term. I understand that there are medical reasons not to abort, but by that point, it seems too late to generally have an elective abortion.


Ok? And I don't really think highly of selective footage of a situation.

In any case, pain is already rebutted by pointing out a meta-analysis(which would be able to rebut a single paper on its own), and also a point about specific functional framework, which on its own is also sufficient.

In any case, I apologize, but we don't have significant brainwave activity resembling that of a person until the third trimester, so mentioning "brain waves" as if I haven't already rebutted the point (as I think either LKL or Vexcaliber has a few pages back) is disingenuous. This means that all you have is heartbeat. As I already stated, there is more reason for me to think that a newborn is not a person, than to think a first trimester fetus is. So, you have to understand that my cleave, as I have already stated, is being really conservative, because guess what? Outside the womb, these things still don't have a lot of neurological function, which is the reason why ethicist Peter Singer is fine with early postnatal "abortion" so to speak.


Right, but if we can justify abortion before the 12 week mark, then most abortions are entirely justified. Even further, if we can get rid of the idea of life at conception, then plan B drugs are acceptable.

And you say I argue from emotion…. Well here are some more studies that show the link.
I know you like meta-studies, so here is one.
Wilcox, W.B. et al. (2005). Why marriage matters: Twenty-six conclusions from the social sciences. 2d ed. New York: Institute for American Values.

And some facts

60 percent of America's rapists came from fatherless homes.
72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without a father.
70 percent of long-term prison inmates are fatherless.

A Canadian study of teenagers discharged from psychiatric hospitals found that only 16 per cent were living with both parents when they were admitted. From nations as diverse as Finland and South Africa, a number of studies have reported that anywhere from 50 to 80 per cent of psychiatric patients come from broken homes.

Another study found that children in stepfamilies typically experience far less favourable emotional lives compared to children in intact families. Their study concluded: “Children in stepfamilies had more behavior problems, less prosocial behavior, and more life stress than children in nuclear families.”



I have given you secular reasons and now studies that show the secular position I put forward to be valid. Now think very hard when you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. In this last section you have tried to use the definition of marriage, as it supposedly held by people in California, that the people there did not agree with. The judges repealed a law (which everyone voted for) by saying that society’s values had changed. Then the people of California passed a constitutional amendment in response to the judge’s position. You have just committed a grave misrepresentation, the judges clearly did not have society’s pulse on the matter. Presenting it as if they did a pretty blatant misrepresentation.



The study I cited shows that the child responds to outside stimuli in a way that demonstrates pain. The child need not have the same specific pathways through which to feel pain as we do (this is what you study is looking at), but the idea that the child can feel pain and discomfort in the physiological sense is well established. Lubeskind, "Psychology & Physiology of Pain," Amer. Review Psychology, vol. 28, 1977, p. 42, Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178, M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77, Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980.

The meta-analysis you have cited sets the bar for pain far higher than most other studies that take place on the matter. It assumes that full conciseness of pain must exist (requiring near full development) in order for pain to be felt. 'Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus'. Pg 952

This is a highly contentions position from which to be basing you argument relating to fetal pain. The study you cited also points out that the lack of evidence for the conclusion that you are attempting to draw from it: 'No human studies have directly examined the development of thalamocortical circuits associated with pain perception. The developmental age at which thalamic pain fibers reach the cortex has been inferred from studies of other thalamocortical circuits, which may or may not develop at the same time as thalamic fibers mediating cortical perception of pain'. Pg 949

Also lets look at the academic background of some of the authors of your meta-study.
Dr Eleanor A. Drey, Director of the abortion clinic at San Francisco General Hospital
Dr Mark Rosen, is a consultant for Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation
Dr John Partridge, is also a consultant for Planned Parenthood
Dr Susan Lee, is an abortion practitioner from San Diego

So I am about as surprised by this study as I am by the tobacco industry finding that smoking does not cause cancer.

I would like you to also clarify your own views on abortion in a more specific sense.



Well so as not to widen the discussion, I will not go into plan B drugs but you seem to be explicitly contradicting the evidence. Of course life begins at conception, the debate is in relation to personhood. So good luck getting rid of that.

I wouldn't have dropped out of high school. I might have actually followed through with my college education. I would be qualified for better jobs than I am now.

One added bonus to have been raised in the same sex home I mentioned is that I would have been honest with myself much earlier and had proper guidance rather than have to keep my mouth shut while people spewed hate towards me over my 'wicked urges'.

You're still applying Belgium's legal system to ours like it's the same thing.

Not to mention, prostate cancer and pregnant men don't even compare to same sex marriage.

This is sort of true, but I would choose to err on the side of the thinking, breathing mother rather than the unthinking bunch of developing tissue. I would err on the mother's side even in matters of convenience, at least during the first two trimesters.

How is showing that gay couples make decent parents 'proving' a slippery slope? We already have gay families, children and all; gay marriage would only recognize what already exists. A 'slippery slope' to the the extant condition isn't much of a slope.


If marriage is a religious institution, then you have no case because some religions have no problem with gay marriage. If marriage is a social institution built around the family, then you have no case because gay families can exist, do exist, and will continue to exist and function just as well as heterosexual families. If marriage is some combination of the two, then you still have no case because there is no emergent property that suddenly justifies discrimination on gay marriages and gay families.


Are you honestly arguing that we go back to the state of sexual mores from a century ago? No birth control, no divorce? And if procreation is central, that leads to a couple of questions: should women past menopause be allowed to marry? What about people who are medically infertile? What about couples who have no children? What about gay couples who use AI or surrogates to have children?


Actually, the evidence shows that childfree couples are generally happier than those with children.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Ame ... rents.html


This is specious. If marriage were entirely about procreation, then childless marriages would automatically be dissolved after, say, five years with no pregnancy; older couples (ie, with the woman past menopause) would not be allowed to marry; and those who had undergone voluntary surgical sterilization or women who had had a medical hysterectomy would not be allowed to marry. Sometimes infertility is difficult to diagnose, but more often it isn't. Furthermore, if medical intervention is allowable to 'justify' marriage in heterosexual coupled who can't get pregnant on their own, why isn't it allowable to 'justify' marriage in homosexual couples who can't get pregnant on their own?

So if it were only a few gay couples wanting to get married, instead of 5-10% of the population, then it would be ok?


No. There is evidence that children do better with both male and female role-models; they do not necessarily have to be the child's biological parents. Children of gay parents might look to aunts or uncles as necessary, or to other adult figures in their lives.
There is also evidence that secure, two-parent families of whatever gender are better than single-parent families. Should we prohibit single-parent families 'for the sake of the children'? Should we, perhaps, take their kids away and make them wards of the state, or allow secure same-sex couples to adopt them because it would be 'better for the children'?

Just what do you propose to do with the same sex families that already exist? Should we ignore them, pretend that they don't exist? Continue to enforce their second-class status by prohibiting recognition of their parents' bond? Maybe yank their children away and put them into foster-care with heterosexual couples?That certainly isn't good for the children, either.


Ok, then you're just factually incorrect. 'life' is a continuum, and I doubt that any of the sources who were quote-mined in that link would disagree. That also doesn't change the fact that many of the quotes had nothing to do with conception.


It's a 1/1,000,000 chance to reproduce some of its DNA.



There may be primitive reflex arcs by week 8 - ie, withdrawl from 'painful' stimuli - but that does not mean that the embryo feels pain. Reflex arcs involve only the spinal cord and distal nerves. Haven't you ever noticed that you jerk away from a hot stove a second before you feel the pain? Same thing. As far as the brain stem, it regulates things like heartbeat and breathing (not pain). The brain at that stage is less developed than that of a minnow.


I'm not the person that you asked, but I'll answer anyway: given that the fetus starts to have acutal brain waves (ie, EEG tracings that are recognizably mammalian at about 24-26 weeks, and is approaching a chance at autonomous living, yes: I personally would limit 3rd trimester abortion to cases where the fetus was abnormal or the health of the mother was endangered. Which is, in fact, the state of the law in most states today.


No. We do not. I'll repeat it again: electrical impulses in the head ARE NOT the same as brain waves. Reflex arcs are not the same as sensation. Flatworms can sense 'touch' and respond to it; they don't even have a central nervous system.


Honey, that's a piece of anti-choice propaganda that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com ... s-lie.html

Ok..... um.... that doesn't respond at all to anything I wrote that you quoted. You stated:
"There is a clear and irrefutable link between the undermining of the centrality of procreation within marriage (and relationships in general) has led to declining birthrates and an increase in divorce"

Now, all you are stating is that single parent households are a bad thing, which isn't relating to anything I said. (And even then you aren't really getting at issues of conditional probability well, given that single-parenthood also correlates very strongly with a lot of other really bad things that aren't the same as single-parenthood, but which DO impact how well children are likely go grow up) The closest thing I see relating to anything I said is "why care about those marriages", and my point "why care about those marriages" really was referring to childless marriages of love, not to the average single parent household. (In fact, I personally doubt that the issues are similar given that single-parent households tend to correlate with figures who have a lower income per person, meaning that it isn't rich upper class culture, of which gay marriage is a representative quality of, that is likely responsible for what is going on)


No, you really haven't done nearly as much as you think you have at all.

I have thought very hard about most of the things I say, and honestly, part of the matter is the habitual nature of your behavior.

I also did not engage in any blatant misrepresentation. The judges DID make a ruling based upon what they perceived to be the culture's judgment on the definition of marriage. The fact that many people are voting against this outcome does not prove the judges wrong though, because the people might not really be working from a very thought out view of the matter, and they probably are not. The average person hates gays, muslims, and so many other groups, and is entirely willing to discriminate against them using any means possible just because they can. We see this with a large number of behaviors.


I honestly do not see how we can hold that a fetus can feel pain without the necessary pain receptive abilities. In fact, given that pain is in part a developmental feature with far greater complexity than just neurological structure, a finding (which as I pointed out earlier) by Donald Hebb in an experiment with dogs. http://publications.mcgill.ca/headway/2 ... d-melzack/ Pain is not this simple basic thing, and aversion does not really entail pain. We have had examples where animals have averted away from something harming them, but without any sign of any sensation of pain by the animal, such as a dog sniffing a candle, jumping back, and then going right back at it as if there were no issue.

Even further, any talk of bias is ridiculous from a person whose only function is as apologist for whatever the Catholic Church thinks on an issue. This was still an article published by the American Medical Association.

In any case, as LKL points out, your own handling of evidence is itself quite squishy, and my own standards for pain are likely closer to that given the meta-analysis, that is that pain requires complexity to handle it all. That being said, even if pain is complicated, the fact of the matter is that you are a dogmatist reaching for whatever evidence you can muster for your favored conclusion, and really, there is no good grounds for thinking that personhood starts at conception. It isn't this clear-cut line, but frankly, as I have already stated, everything I know actually finds more favorable the idea that newborns aren't persons above the idea that conceptuses are persons.


No, I am not explicitly contradicting the evidence. As for "life begins at conception".... um.... the term is short hand for our problems on personhood. So, it is still relevant, especially given that you've promoted that position just a few pages earlier. This is not "widening the discussion". This is addressing an earlier point that you presented as your FREAKING POSITION!

*sigh* Fine, I am done with this. You're not a human being, or an individual who can reason and come to their own conclusions, you are a robot who follows whatever ideology you feel sucked into, and whose real position is just defending that ideology.

I've never pretended that I don't pass value judgements--there's the difference. Your hypocrisy lies in pretending that your position does not reflect on my value as a person when, in fact, it goes to one of my fundamental characteristics.

I don't call you a hypocrite and then say, "no offence to the Catholics in the room." I am quite prepared to accept that my observation is offensive, and I stand by it. I would have far more respect for you if you acknowledged that your remarks are insulting and demeaning to homosexuals, and stood by them.

I don't deny that same-sex marriages are, and always will be in the minority. The important difference, however, is that opposition to same sex marriage seeks to deprive people of a legal benefit, whereas proponents of same-sex marriage are (generally speaking) perfectly content to allow opposite sex couples to continue to enjoy the benefits that they have enjoyed up to this point.

No one has yet pointed out to me any way in which a same sex marriage harms other people, or denigrates their so-called "traditional" marriages.

I think I have pretty much put forward my position, there are some things I would like to respond to.

Well there is a difference between something that exists and legal recognition.



If such families do exist, why does there need to be legal recognition? There is plenty of evidence (referenced above) that children are better of within traditional families. This justifies the legal and societal distinction.



Why is everything that is old, wrong. I am not sure how and when that happened. There were some things that we did do much better back then. The explosion of juvenile crime, the degradation of the family does mean that we revive some of the old customs that work.



Sorry, nope. The doctor who made the video has defended against most of those criticisms quite effectively. Though I have not been able to get it online. You can find it at here, The Answer, Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY, 10011.

As to the comments relating to single parents and the idea that my arguments are somehow against them as well. I do not have a problem with single parents, I was raised by one but a single parent is not a legal marriage.

@ Visagrunt

It does not reflect on your value as a person, unless you consider marriage to be something that makes someone more valuable. There are a great many legal criteria that I do not fit, I am not a veteran, there are specific criteria for being considered a veteran. It is not wrong for society to not recognize me as a veteran and I can cite all the studies I want about the bravery of nonveterans but I will not fit that definition. The definition of marriage has near universally always been considered to be the relationship between man and woman who are the foundation of the family. There are other family type relationships, but they are not marriages.