by John Galt » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:01 pm
the context was i was saying that for purposes of "children" the children that homosexuals can have -- and the ones they only can have -- unnatural become their children, and are not the progeny. these types of things always have heavy amount of legal proceedings around them. it's not like adopting a dog, it's a human being.
heterosexual couples, the natural pairing of humans to create more humans, on the other hand can actually make children. if not, they too can get children the same way as homosexuals, and again, it would have heavy amounts of legal proceedings around them.
so if the question had to do with "why have marriage?" and the answer, in part, was "children", outside of protecting children caused by natural procreation, that is no reason.
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.