Fertility is the first step to raising children in every single case, even children who are adopted.
It is simply the theoretical ability to make children.
Theoretical?!?!? :lol:
That is because I never went a separate route. That was your perceptoin.
Then why did you fail to go that route until I brought it up to begin with?
The fact that same sex couples are as capable as opposite sex couples at raising children strengthens the case that this is unfounded discrimination.
To a degree yes, but are they are as willing to raise children as OS couples?
Presenting an argument that the reasoning behind SSM is to raise children together and suddenly the case for unfounded discrimination is
proven.
Where you are wrong is that it is a legitmate argument that the state has an interest in legistatling based on fertility.
Where you are wrong is that I've been saying that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on fertility because the only interest the state has in marriage is the raising of children is a legitimate argument.
Acknowledging it's legitimacy would dictate that one presents a counter-argument to that argument by.. wait for it... "presenting arguments relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions".
It
is a legitimate argument, but that doesn't mean it can't be countered by acknowledging it's merits, and then pointing out how those merits are
also true of SSMs. .