I've already given a sample of supporting evidence in post 192, and while I may be willing to give additional examples, I have no interest in trying to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt my position in this light weight thread.
OK, but I've debunked your sample in post #192, so I'm not sure what water your position holds.
Here it seems you are trying to further compartmentalize the various functions of marriage. Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but consieved in marriage.
It is a package deal.
I am compartamentalizing the argument in order to go along with the parameters of the thread. However, you are correct in that there are numerous benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with child rearing. And I am uninterested in Loving or Skinner. You, yourself have said, many times that they do not pertain to the gay-marriage issue. Further, information shows that children reared in two-parent households, of any combination perform similarly, functionwise. Biology is not a prerequisite to this success.
I never claimed that the study identified errors.
I said that I interpreted the differences illustrated in the study as errors, ie; my opinion.
I hope you can see the difference there.
OK, I stand corrected. You did present it as your opinion. And I showed how your opinion lacks foundation.
This does not address any point of my argument.
You stated this in the post I am quoting...I bolded the important part:
Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but consieved in marriage.
You are referring to procreation in marriage. This has been part of the argument, and continues to be.
The typical child raised by gays being equal too children coming from the 50%+ dysfunctional hetero homes is hardly a convincing argument, even if simply raising children were the only element composing a marriage, since the 50%+ dysfunctional homes are another problem. All your saying here is that gay marriage would perpetuate existing dysfunctions. Your point here is at best benign.
The fallacy in your argument is that children brought up in families without both of their biological parents is inherently dysfunctional. This is not accurate. You have offered no evidence that this is true. Conversely, evidence shows that children brought up in two parent households for any configuration succeed, similarly. I have presented this evidence in several threads in the past, threads that you have participated in, Jerry.
As I said, which you chose to ignore before and will thus likely choose to ignore again here: raising children is a part of the deal, only a part, and does not-in-and-of-itself justify allowing a given marriage lest we also allow incest and polygamy.
I agree, that it is only part of the deal. And there are other reasons that have nothing to do with child rearing that would disqualify incest and polygamy.
This entire exchange miss-assumes that the gay marriage movement is based on what is best for children and families.
This is of course not the case, as the pro-gm argument is about legitimizing the gay identity in the public eye. Sex and sexuality is the priority issue, financial benefits second. Children and family take a very distant 3rd place when they're even considered at all.
If the main pro-gm argument were about children and families first, with all else barely mentioned and considered incidental, I would be far more likely to support gay marriage.
The pro-gm position is about a combination of things, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "legitimizing the gay identity". Please explain.