razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Or those children need fostering or adoption, and gays are the only people offering.
Its the blatant inconsistency that annoys me.
"oh, but marriage is about a stable home for children, since gays can't procreate, they can't get married"
-so you're against infertile heterosexual couples getting married?
"*crickets*"
"Oh, but children have a right to live with their biological mother and father"
-so you want to stop single parent families?
"*crickets*"
"Oh, but the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and we can't expose children to that!"
-So, you want to take children away from heterosexual adulterers and divorcees?
"*crickets*"
"Oh, I don't care what they do in the bedroom, as long as they don't make the church change the definition of marriage"
-But we're not talking about church recognition, rather legal, secular government recognition. So why should you want to stop that?
NB. At this point the argument invariably circles back to one of the earlier points about children.
Forget the hatrick, you've got 4 strawmen here! Up to #3,277
Upvote
0