Supreme Court decision

[Prloko]

That is pretty funny.



This article was so bad, it made my head hurt. I don't know how the courts work in Canada, but the Supreme Court in the U.S. has allowed all kinds of speech. You can walk through a predominately Jewish neighborhood and chant Nazi rhetoric, you can burn crosses, and you can burn the flag. If Civil Rights and EEOC laws haven't made it illegal for private citizens to say racial slurs and post racist ideology online, then legalizing same-sex marriage is not going to outlaw speech against same-sex marriage and homosexuality. It's not legal to harass people whether you're using slurs or not, but that has long been determined to not be protected speech.

One cannot look to children who grew up in homes without fathers and make assumptions about how children in homes with same-sex parents will turn out. The children who end up in jail partially because they grew up in a single-parent home usually grew up in poverty and possibly with a mother who provided inadequate parenting. You have to consider the reasons why the mother ended up being a single parent in the first place.

I really don't understand this person's who argument about biological parents. If someone donated their eggs or sperm and gave up their rights to the child, then what else is there to it? Why would the child want a claim to a parent who didn't want to claim the child to begin with? Even without same-sex marriage, gay people will still be able to pay for eggs, sperm, and surrogate mothers. Clay Aiken and Ricky Martin did it. Single, straight people also do it.

That article links to a Federalist article that talks about the increase of people choosing not to get married. Well, that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. As women became more independent, they felt less of a need to get married. There are also a lot of young men who don't see the value in marriage. Again, that has nothing to do with the existence of same-sex marriage.

Edit: I want to add something about adoption. There are many children in the U.S. who will age out of the foster care system. In other words, they will never be adopted. Research has shown that children are usually better off being left in abusive homes than being put in the foster care system. That is how bad it is. That is why child protective service agencies are often hesitant to remove a child from his or her home unless his or her life or health is in danger. With that knowledge, I doubt children would be better off in foster care than being placed with a same-sex couple.

A well thought out and critical argument deserving of the title "doctor"