Prove that if one is born homosexual it is a biological error,
I've already given a sample of supporting evidence in post 192, and while I may be willing to give additional examples, I have no interest in trying to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt my position in this light weight thread.
This not completely accurate. The purpose of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is to promote the healthy rearing of children. Procreation is not a necessity to this.
Here it seems you are trying to further compartmentalize the various functions of marriage. Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but
consieved in marriage.
It is a package deal.
Jerry, I read the study you posted. I discusses biological DIFFERENCES, not errors. This is a significant semantical variation.
I never claimed that the study identified errors.
I said that I interpreted the differences illustrated in the study as errors, ie; my opinion.
I hope you can see the difference there.
Procreation is not a necessity to good parenting. Two-parent households of any gender combination promote children of equivalent health and functioning level.
This does not address any point of my argument.
In bold is where you veer off course. The state has a vested interest in supporting couples raising children. Biological, step and other non biological couples raising children fulfill this, as these children, overall, function on the same level, and, overall, do better than children raised in single parent or other non-two parent familial situations. Gay couples raising children, produce kids that are as healthy as those from straights. So, in this part of the argument, promoting gay unions is in the government's interest.
The typical child raised by gays being equal too children coming from the 50%+ dysfunctional hetero homes is hardly a convincing argument, even if simply raising children were the only element composing a marriage, since the 50%+ dysfunctional homes are another problem. All your saying here is that gay marriage would perpetuate existing dysfunctions. Your point here is at best benign.
As I said, which you chose to ignore before and will thus likely choose to ignore again here: raising children is a part of the deal, only a part, and does not-in-and-of-itself justify allowing a given marriage lest we also allow incest and polygamy.
***
This entire exchange miss-assumes that the gay marriage movement is based on what is best for children and families.
This is of course not the case, as the pro-gm argument is about legitimizing the gay identity in the public eye. Sex and sexuality is the priority issue, financial benefits second. Children and family take a very distant 3rd place when they're even considered at all.
If the main pro-gm argument were about children and families first, with all else barely mentioned and considered incidental, I would be far more likely to support gay marriage.