The logic would be that when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children.
A common means of illustrating logic is through syllogism.
Premise: Society is served by by creating a stable environment for children by inducing males to remain during the raising of those children.
Your argument: when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children
Do you see how the logic utterly fails?
The other bit of logic is, if you are not married and a man and woman have sex they can produce a child the same as if they are married.
Exactly, therefore it is in societies best interest to devise the rules so that the couple DOES marry. Homosexual unions work against this outcome, thus are counter-productive.
Other logic says for every 2 marriages there is more than one divorce, which suggest that marriage isn't so great in many situations for the potential children that are being produced. It also suggests the states would have a hard time justifying marriage as the greatest thing for children.
That isn't "logic" - just an argument. Logic follows premise, support, conclusion.
And a counter argument that the weakening of the institution of marriage and the degradation in the status of marriage are one of the causes of high divorce rates is easy enough to support.
GOOD marriage is GOOD for children. BAD marriage is BAD for children.
Even that is debatable.
http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/research_pdf's/Fabricius_Ann_Cools_Paper.pdf
Here's the problem with your premise. For every 2 marriages there's one divorce. Is marriage a stable environment for children? The answer is no.
This isn't me saying that marriage can't be a stable environment, though I knew a guy whose parents never married and he had that stable environment. The reality is stable environments are made by two people being together.
The point about my argument, which you are attempting to claim is in response to your premise, is that firstly you don't ask couples if they want to have kids. Is there any interest for the state to allow two people to marry who aren't going to have kids?
This is the argument that appears to be coming through from your side for not having gay marriages. Then if you aren't making a stable environment for kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Or did I miss something?
Either, you allow all consenting adults to marry the person of their choice, and in doing so hope that you create a stable environment for the kids that may be produced.
Or, you allow only those people who are going to have kids from marrying so that you create a stable environment for kids.
However, even the or statement there doesn't take into account abuse, and other such things that may lead to divorce and an unstable marriage environment.
Do I see the utter logic failure? I see you trying to push the argument in a direction and then make a claim that doesn't work.
How does a homosexual marriage stop straight people who want kids from producing a stable environment for kids exactly?
Your argument is that marriage DOES provide a stable environment. 2 marriages 1 divorce. What percentage of marriages are stable? 50%? And there the ones where people do get divorced, what about the unhappy marriages that never end?
You think bad marriage is good for children?
Clearly your argument seems to be about preventing divorce, rather than allowing gay people to marry which has nothing to do with a stable environment for children.
