At statement for which they don't show proof, of course. Yes, it is obvious. Why then did you state that erred? I didn't; I simply restated, which, as you state, is obvious. Duh. Incorrect. The book shows no proof that SSM will harm Canadian society in any way, that I can see. I read it, and I'm correct: there is no evidence given that if SSM is allowed, hetero marriage will fail to be fostered. So according to you, for a form of marriage to involve more than copulation, it must involve giving birth to children? Wow. You are implying that marriage is only about copulation and children. LOL. You really believe that hetero people must be "fostered" in their heteroloveuality, or they will cease to be so? LOL A statement of opinion only, not footnoted, I notice. Interesting though, that the authors seem to be saying that without the fostering of marriage, hetero people may not be monogamous. The readers of this statement may well fail to see how that relates presently to gay people, as they claim increased promiscuity among us! See the above concerning monogamous relationships, for example. By the way, I note with interest that the authors discussed above are in favor of civil unions, yet against SSM. Can you find in the book why this is true? Are YOU in favor of civil unions like the authors are?
|
