Again it's not marriage, even if it is some sort of couplement.
There is zero benefit from "H*mos*xual marriage" or rather couplement to society. The arguments should surround what the actual burdens are.
The benefit from real marriage are clear. It's designed that people can conceive and raise children, which is a necessity for the further existence of society. If husband or wife are infertile, then that's unfortunate. The theoretical potential is still there. A H*mos*xual couplement is infertile by design. There isn't even a theoretical potential for this. They somehow require an intervention from outside to get children.
That H*mos*xual couplements generally would be or are better parents then married couples, or even single parents is in dispute *) even if that is a frequent talking point by the queer lobby. And as for foster children even normal couples that want to adopt have some hurdles in doing so. Why make that more difficult by extending those eligible to do so?
What is the benefit of straight marriage if there is no children involved?
The point is that raising children is not the sole purpose of marriage; the government doesn't ask if you plan to have children when you go to get married. When an old couple gets married such a union is obviously not designed to have children, if anything it would be unethical for an old couple to conceive and raise children. Yet we do not shame old people for getting married because the union will not result in babies. When a young straight couple wants to get married but chooses not to have kids we don't say their marriage should be null and void. But when G*y people want to get married all of a sudden people say marriage is all about kids and if you can't make your own you have no business being married, I don't buy it.
If G*y couples can overcome the hurdles of adoption just like straight couples what is the argument to keep them from doing so beyond the fact that it will increase the queue length? That is not a good argument IMO; it is like saying blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it will inconvenience the white males trying to vote.
Fact is in America hundreds of thousands of kids are waiting to be adopted, and there are long waiting periods for couples looking for kids because they are very picky about what kind of child they want; specifically a baby that is healthy, white, and male.
Any individual can have a bad experience; lots of kids with straight parents that get abused too. However, when you look at the actual literature on the subject they do not find that G*y couples are ill-equipped to be parents. Here is a recent (2015) meta study of H*mos*xual parenting: http://www.sciencedi...049089X15001209
"We find that the literature on outcomes for children of same-s@x parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience “no differences” compared to children from other parental configurations."
Here is another study from a few years ago that looked at childhood educational progress: http://www.scienceda...00831091240.htm
Rosenfeld's study shows that children of G*y and married couples had lower grade-repetition rates than their peers raised by opposite-s@x unmarried couples and single parents. And all children living in some type of family environment did much better than those living in group housing. Those who were awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home were held back about 34 percent of the time.
"One of the fundamental issues in modern family law that differs from state to state is whether same-s@x couples can adopt," Rosenfeld said. "My research makes clear that there's a huge advantage to kids to be out of the care of the state and into the care of any family, even if the family is not perfectly optimal."