There is a nit I have about #2--that is, regardless of whether you think the world needs more children or not, out of the infertile couple, the elderly couple, and the homosexual couple, only the last lacks a biblical precedent for having children anyway. (Abraham and Sarah, and if you're Christian, then Zachary and Elizabeth.) In that context, which I'm guessing is being used by most people against gay marriage, this one seems a lot more reasonable.
There are other nits (mostly to point out the more striking of the invalid comparisons), but I think I'm sufficiently disgusted that our resources are being spent on what's in a lot of cases just a stupid argument over word semantics that I'm not wishing to spend that much thought. For goodness' sake, just pick another word and write the laws to be agnostic to this issue. Since when has it been the government's job to enforce high-level morality anyway?
no subject
There are other nits (mostly to point out the more striking of the invalid comparisons), but I think I'm sufficiently disgusted that our resources are being spent on what's in a lot of cases just a stupid argument over word semantics that I'm not wishing to spend that much thought. For goodness' sake, just pick another word and write the laws to be agnostic to this issue. Since when has it been the government's job to enforce high-level morality anyway?