Here we come to the crux of the issue. We have a summary analysis that explicitly mentions that expansion of marriage to include homos is not the cause of the diminishing importance of marriage, but rather is symptomatic of a pre-existing deterioration in the status of marriage in the eyes of many citizens; yet, they then conclude that policy makers should reject marriage for homos under the guise of benefiting the family. The conclusion does not follow. Here is one example of marriage and the traditional notion of the family being eroded: the horrific explosion of out-of-wedlock births, particularly to teenagers, since the early 1970s. This began to happen, and reached its peak (there is, thankfully, some evidence that out-of-wedlock births have declined a little), LONG before anyone serious was considering expanding the definition of marriage to include homos. So, exactly how does allowing homos to marry imperil "the family"? Thank You JewsThere is absolutely no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. PAUL AND THE PAGAN RELIGION OF... Opponents of homo marriage keep butterting, with neither evidence nor a logically coherent story, that allowing it would "damage" the insbreastution of the family. They need to prove it. To date, they haven't even tried, and this article doesn't consbreastute a start.
|
