Gay Marriage

I would also like to state that this is my first time on this website so I am unfamiliar with the specifics as far as procedure and order in presenting one's case. I agree that anecdotal evidence is not as effective as national policy, I was just giving context to show that I am not blindly siding in this debate, but instead am well aware with the happenings of this topic as it is prevalent in my life and family. I do not understand your analysis on my first point. In-Vitro insemination cannot happen on accident, and all I am saying in the aforementioned contention is just that Gay parents would have been required to think through what they are doing, whereas, Straight parents sometimes have children on accident. This means the Gay parents have to be 100% sure about what they are doing because they go through the tedious procedure of adopting (1). As far as your statistics for insemination, quite frankly, that is a different debate for another day. I am not taking a stance on insemination, but instead simply on Gay marriage and the married couple's ability to raise a child (through means of adoption, I am not necessarily taking a stance on insemination, that was never stated in my previous argument). About sexuality influence, I invite you to read again what I actually stated. I never said it has no influence, I said it is ridiculous to assume that (which you said you agree is ridiculous) they will force their sexuality. And I stated that it happens where the child becomes straight. Although yes they could become gay and at a higher percentage as you stated, it is not 100% of the time, therefore refuting this corrupting argument. #3 You say this is completely untrue and then go on to use minute statistics to proven drastic point. Yes, maybe approximately 3% of the gay population would disagree in some way, but what about the 97%? Do you honestly think less than a twentieth of the considered population disproves what is supported by the 97%? I do not know where you are getting what you are saying about the APA, but according to their unbiased website, they have not sided one way or another as far as the choice vs naturality of being gay (2). Looking at your purely legalistic argument, it appears both wrong and illogical. First, you state that in the government's eyes they would have the heterosexual interest at heart but not the homosexual interest. This is simply wrong. The combined incomes of a married couple can lead to their placement in a higher tax bracket, and although they don't make children, they may adopt which means less kids in foster homes, so there are less foster homes, so there is less funding required by the government for such social reasons. The homosexual community is in no way asking for elevated status above the heterosexual status under marriage, but is simply asking to be equal. Gay people: pay the same taxes, work the same jobs, fight the same wars, and contribute to society the same as heterosexuals in America and abroad, and it seems simply fair to ensure that they would therefore have the same rights. Before you say that they have rights it just isn't called marriage, please keep in mind that in the governments eyes 'marriage' guarantees certain economic protections for a family unit so it would be in the homosexual interest to indeed be given the right to get married. Yes, it may not be 'traditional marriage' but, then again, what is? When we look to the past, historically what has marriage been? For the greater part of human history it has been comprised of both arranged marriages, and purchases a young man can make to the father of the bride (I am not specifically talking about the bible) so unless one supports the aforementioned, they cannot condemn homosexual marriage saying it is because they support what traditional marriage is. Once again, I am unfamiliar with format so I apologise if my second argument here is not exactly in the format it should have been. (1) - . http://www.more4kids.info... (2) - . http://www.apa.org... Thank you, Derek