<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div style="RIGHT: auto">On 7/15/2012 11:32 PM, Donovan Arnold
wrote:<span style="font-family: Tahoma; color: black; font-size:
10pt;"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma;
COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma;
COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="RIGHT: auto"><[snip]>
"It is <span style="RIGHT: auto" id="misspell-0"><span>immaterial</span></span>
if a same gendered couple adds children to the world
with assistance from an opposite gendered person outside
the marriage. They have still added children to the
world.</span></span><span style="RIGHT: auto"
class="mark"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR:
black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">" <[snip]><br>
</span></span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma;
COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="RIGHT: auto"><br>
True. The biological fact of the matter is that same-sex
couples can not reproduce (scientific oddities with mice
notwithstanding). If society's understanding of the
nature of marriage is such that even same-sex couples
are to be allowed to create new children, and allows
same-sex new parentage to be legal, then same-sex
marriage as an ancillary means for population control is
a failure. Indeed, it is worse than a failure to the
extent of such related population increase.<br>
<br>
<span style="RIGHT: auto" class="mark"><[snip]>
"My point, is that no person should be forced to marry
another person for reasons other than for love of that
person." <[snip]><span class="mark"><span
id="misspell-9"></span></span><br>
<br>
By way of contrast, I suggest that no person should be
forced to marry anyone for any reason, including for
love of that person.<br>
<br>
</span></span></span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;
color: black; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="right: auto;">"Your
argument, that people should marry someone of the same
gender to reduce the human population, boils down to
saying everyone should engage only in gay sex for the
purposes of reducing pregnancies. Which is, shy of any
other respectable world, silly."<br>
<br>
The word that should be assigned to your
characterization of the argument is incorrect, not
silly. The initial suggestion was that same-sex marriage
should be legal in order to recognize those same-sex
couples who wish to marry and not add to the excess
population. I did not suggest, nor does the potential
legality of same-sex marriage imply, that, as you write
"</span></span><span style="RIGHT: auto"><span
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR: black;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="RIGHT: auto">everyone
should engage only in gay sex for the purposes of
reducing pregnancies.</span></span></span></span><span
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span
style="RIGHT: auto">" That suggestion goes way beyond
silly.<br>
<br>
If same-sex couples demand child creation and child
rearing privileges be granted to them legally, and if
society, as it apparently has in jurisdictions where
same-sex marriage is legal, grants such privileges, then
society not only fails to favorably address the
overpopulation problem, it unfavorably addresses it by
going out of its way to create another avenue through
which more legally-sanctioned people may be created.
Whatever degrees of legal fairness, equity, and justice
may otherwise inhere to legalized same-sex marriage,
population control assistance is not among them. <br>
</span></span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma;
COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="RIGHT: auto"> </span></span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma;
COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="RIGHT: auto">"The
only possible strength to your argument might be, that
some people might get married to a same gendered friend
for the tax and medical benefits. But again, that would
be morally wrong to do that, in my personal opinion." </span></span></div>
</span></span><br>
The distinction between moral and legal has long been recognized,
and it is not likely going away any time soon.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>