General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsResponse to Playinghardball (Original post)
Post removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Sometimes I feel like I've time-traveled to the Bronze Age
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I salute them!
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)And conversely, one can't be in a same-sex relationship and raise children?
Because this will "disturb the balance of the ecosystem"?
Indpndnt
(2,391 posts)"...giving birth to children and raising them up can no longer be a fundamental commitment of a marriage, because same sex couples cannot fulfill that."
All of those babies that are born if Roe v. Wade is overturned, where are they going to go? Workhouses? Orphanages? Or are you going to adopt? Because, not only is surrogacy or artificial insemination very viable (and proven) options for same sex couples, so is adoption.
If marriage is so important, why were Adam and Eve not married? Marriage as it exists today didn't exist for centuries. However did the ecosystem survive to reach this point?
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)married?
Can gay couples (women of course) not give birth and raise children?
People become gay because they are raised in gay households? Those who you say should not marry because they can not give birth or raise children? Huh.
The argument of nature vs nurture regarding sexual orientation is not a long debate at all.