 Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin  If government rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage were based on procreation, I might have to agree with your statement.
But, as it does NOT, and there is nothing questioning the intent/ability/desire to procreate on a marriage application, and there is nothing regarding children on a marriage license, and there is no mention of children, procreation or family in the actual vows one takes to enter into the legally binding contract of marriage, your statement is rather moot. | I didn't say it was based on procreation. Go back and reread my post, I gave many other reasons. Quote: |
It's based on a false premise. You have simply based marriage on ideas that you WANT the word to have - or, at the least, that you can twist into finding validation for discrimination - not on any kind of honest representation of it.
| No, the basis I used are the basis for marriage. The relationship between two same sex people do not relate to traditional family unit. In a traditional family in all families around the world females are given away to another family... eldest son has more rights and responsibilities than younger siblings... A gay unit is not a family unit. In a traditional sense female children are debits and male children are family assets. Family is a unit, and the male offspring is responsible for caring for the parents in old age and the female offspring must support the family that she is "given to" in their old age. So the tradition of marriage has nothing to do with gay couples because in tradition males would support "their" family and females their husbands family. The invention of Social Security did not give gays the right to marry as in the traditional sense of marriage. mouse, mice
louse, lice
house, uhh ignore that one
The plural of "spouse" is "spice".
LIBERALISM - Emotional thinking fueled by ignorance |