I think it does affect the thousands of children raised by same sex couples in the state of Michigan.
The problem with making these kinds of arguments is it throws your personal morality and ability to reason into question. You are basically saying the only argument YOU can make against those situations are "gays can't do it".
Children cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult and for all the same reasons we would not allow children to serve on a jury, drive a car, enter a contract, buy alcohol, and any other number of reasons that relate to their ability to make decisions, we will not allow them to marry. But the fact that you clearly did not understand that yourself, makes you look pretty...bad.
But please continue to make arguments like those. It does help the gay rights movement quite a bit when people see the level of reasoning your side is capable.
That is questionable, extremely questionable. You, being on that side, may feel that it is the same, that there are no provable, discernible differences between SS and OS couples' children and their development... but we don't really know, perhaps the repercussions will not be felt for a generation, maybe more. Just like climate change, current snapshots are not necessarily the best way to analyze medium to long term effects. For instance, we now know that the benefits of access at age 4 to the much praised and promulgated Head Start program are largely absent by First grade. You are willing to play Russian Roulette with these children's lives and with our society, I am not quite that nationally suicidal.
Oh, and lets get off the silly
calls into question bull fecal "stuff"... using that style of low silliness calls into question one's actual debating ability as well as the capacity for actual critical thinking. Nice attempt at a dodge, tho, disparage contentions you cannot really counter. Too clever by half, but maybe less. Your facile attempt was just that.
Next, its more than disingenuous to put forth something you indicate as being my "only argument". Hard to debate civilly with someone that insolently presumptuous... and that wrong. There are myriad "arguments". Going against nature, going against all established religious practices [ against the wisdom of the ages, empirical evidence ], a tyranny of the minority over the majority, going against the people's will and our ability to determine what is allowable and not in our own culture, SSM being absolutely unnecessary... well, you would get the idea, if you really wanted to, but I think you consciously turn away.
As was itemized in another recent post of mine in this thread, all that rationality you present with regard to children...all can be erased, changed by a stroke of a pen, a judgement of an activist judge with the subsequent precedent, many things could go, and go rapidly, from rational to the irrational, proven by very the fact that, here we are, 2014, currently arguing whether same sexes should be able to marry one another. How rational is that... and you seem convinced you are on the right side. Ten years from now, if you folks get your way, I will be reminiscing about how I predicted that children will be allowed to serve on a juries, drive a car, marry, whatever... you haven't a clue, nor seemingly a care, as to what Pandoras you will be releasing upon us all.
Oh, and thank you, I most dedicatedly will continue to make the good, the rational arguments, allow folks such as yourself to be seen to constantly attempting to dodge them, then fading as you flail away, following down a newly discovered path of social deviance.
eace
