People get married without having children all the time. Children are not necessary for that union, nevertheless homosexual couples have children all the time! Two gay men meet two gay women to produce children for both couples.

Children aren't necessary but implied. Sex isn't necessary but implied based on consummation laws. But it is impossible for a gay couple to create offspring that shares their genetic code. Even science can't fix that.

Having legalized gay marriage is just a matter of time as there is no reason bigotry can be a reason to prevent two concenting adults from forming a union.

I agree but it has nothing to do with less bigotry. It's more like apathy and money. People don't care about anything but money any more. The immigration "problem" is an example. Where is the debate that people are spilling into our nation at a unknown rate and something needs to be done about it. The name "America" will have to be in Spanish soon.

Not to mention, since the beginning of time hetrosexuals have had babies without being married. Marriage isn't nescessary for having children, nor is having children mean that one has to be married.

And since the beginning of time (I guess) homosexuals HAVEN'T been able to have children. Marriage isn't necessary to have children. But male sperm and female eggs are are an absolute. And coitus is the ONLY natural way to that end. And that fact is an absolute among mammals.

It's all about people wanting other people to fit into nice, tidy boxes. And since most people don't live in boxes, expecting them to is pretty useless.

Actually nature does put some things pretty simply. Reproduction is one of them. You put the key in the hole and voila.

You can want in one hand, poop in the other. Guess which one will fill up quickest.

See what I mean. Should we just let people perform scat all over network TV? I mean hey, it's a natural body function. More naturally supported than homosexuality even since EVERYBODY takes a dump. Except maybe somebody with a congenital defect that effect thier bowel. But they are defective. I wonder since they can't poop, are they being discriminated against if they wanted to perform in a scat movie? Hmmmm.......


I mean isn't that picture demeaning to people with colon cancer? How rude and inconsiderate of you.

IMG]http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb096&pp=ZJxdm028YYUS[/IMG]

You guys have a great weekend, I got grass to cut and cars to wash. And by the way. This thread has been hijacked as usual to the "marriage" side. If you would read my initial post, marriage had nothing to do with it. I'm just saying.

It may possibly be implied, but procreating is still not a requirement. Likewise, consummation is only a concern for divorce or annulment.

It's not implied at all. You wish it was implied, to back your position up, but none-the-less, marriage isn't based off whether or not the couple can/will have children. Marriage is about BONDING with another person.

If anything, it has more to do with property rights and medical care of/by the spouse.

Consummation laws? You do realize that today, outside of orthodox Catholic beliefs, consummation isn't a grounds of marriage nor grounds for a divorce? Two people can marry yet not engage in sex period. Yet, they are considered married in the eyes of the government. That's yet another way in just how much the meaning of marriage has changed over the centuries. You better be getting into this century, not relying on old religious laws that aren't useful in a government court of divorce today.

SSM couples are getting married for alot more reasons then just the financial benefits. The majority of these couples have lived in monogamous relationship with their significant others for years. They are wanting the same thing that other couples (who happen to be hetrosexual) have and take for granted in ways of personal rights.

The right to be legitamitly married to the person of their choice, that they've built a life with. To be able to share in caring for one another in times of illness without having some ignorant person say 'You're not family, you can't be here', of being able to provide healthcare for their loved companion through their jobs' insurance, and IF thier companion passes away, having legal rights to the property the two of them acquired together during the relationship without someone saying 'hey, you're not married so you're not family and not entitled to the property. It goes to his/her family instead'.

And the only thing keeping that from happening, is back-water, 'it isn't natural/moral' thumpers like yourself. People that are so wrapped up in what they THINK two consenting adults do in the privacy of thier home and pass judgement based on their 'eww, it's icky' mentality, rather then keeping thier noses out of another's personal life and let those individuals live thier lives with who they want and call it marriage if they so wish.

Again, you go with the procreation argument...And again, procreation isn't a necessity of being married. Nor is marriage a necessity of procreation.

Doesn't matter whether or not homosexuals can reproduce. Plenty of hetrosexuals can't either, as well as many don't want to reproduce. Humanity seems to be doing just dandy on the procreation front, as it doesn't seem there's a shortage of people or births happening in the world. In fact, quite the opposite...Too many people and births.

In nature itself, when there's an overpopulation in a given species, nature either creates another species to kill off/weed out the population, or curtails reproduction capabilities. Afterall, there should be no more of a given species then what nature can support it with...

Yet, in regards to humans, we actually keep nature from doing that when we have a population explosion. We have created ways to produce children when one or more of our species can't bear children. And we create drugs and machines to substain the life of those weaker, and in nature would die naturally.

Yet, you insist on using procreation as your 'reason', when it doesn't apply to the human species at all. Because irregardless of nature's plan, as humans we choose and pick whether or not we wish to procreate. And so far, we procreate without worry about how it's taxing our enviroment and the earth itself. Heck, we kill out entire species to ensure that our species grows and multiplies irregardless whether there's room or food enough to support our kind?



Read my answer above. Knowing how reproduction occures doesn't change the answer the least bit. Simply because, even by those techniques, there are still couples that it doesn't work for and they have to seek medical interference to have children. The same technology that homosexuals are able to use also.

Because even if you have the key and the keyhole, it isn't always guarenteed to work.


I don't have a problem with people perform whatever on t.v. I actually know how to turn the t.v. to another channel or off, if I don't like what's on. But hey...I understand you're caught between a rock and a hard place with your procreation argument, so you have a desire to change the topic. Continue on please, since obviously you are finding it difficult to justify your biasness against homosexuals and other's relationships.

ROTFLMAOL!!! So, since you know you can't substantiate your argument you were having, now it's time for you to imply I've made an insult about someone else? I know you're desperate to convince others your way is the only way, but even this implication is below your usual tatics of diversion.

Oh spank me please. I so enjoy it when you get rough.




ROTFLMAOL!!! Yep, you deffinately highjacked it with your argument that procreation is implied in marriage...I realize that your ego is bruised and so now you must claim it was the 'other side' doing the deed, not yourself. Run away there little Fxashun. Don't cry too hard that you didn't present a more valid explination of your side...

can't you get a different argument when you try to hide behind your troll names?

it does have a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

We've had gay marriage here for quite awhile. And guess what happened? Not a goddam thing. Gays got married, they had relationships like straight people, some got divorced and life went on. The earth didn't open up and swallow us whole.
I cannot think of one single rational, non-religious argument against gay marriage. (Note that gay marriage rituals are usually done at non-denominational chapels or in civil ceremonies and churches are not forced to participate).
If gays want to get married and be just as miserable as us...fine. Good for them. Besides the more gay men there are, the more women there are for me. It costs society nothing..and actually likely provides a benefit since those in happy relationships live longer and are healthier.

You mean that the world did not come to an end? Will wonders ever cease....