[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats actually not my stated goal, but see my response to Elwood vis a vis the extension of benefits to gay adoptees.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I haven't read your previous volumes on the subject and just lumped you in with everybody else in this thread who's obsessed with propagation of the species like we're about to go extinct.

So you're pro-gay marriage if children are involved. And you're willing to look past some "dead weight" of married hetero couples without children, but not [censored] ones without children? Isn't it getting fairly nitty to remain against gay marriage in this case?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you could get away with calling it nitty, I wont be offended. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I'm willing to accept that deadweight loss because its too hard to combat it. However, basic sense tells us that a married homosexual couple is much less likely to have children than a heterosexual couple. In fact, the definitely wont unless they take extraordinary means to do so. Once they commit themselves to that path than I'm willing to extend the benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

btw- When I was reading up on the misinformation spouted earlier by inso... where studies had confirmed that gay couples raising kids didn't change the likelihood that a child would be gay... I saw some surprising statistic. The number of gay parents (either through adoption or having a child) was very high. Much higher then I expected. My point being that gay people are raising a lot more children then probably most of us realize. If I wasn't about to catch a train soon I'd do some research.