Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it's a bad thing, then you agree with me and most of the nation, when we approve of promoting and endorsing marriage for the men and women giving birth to these children. We will become a lesser nation is our children are being raised by single parents.
Which is why we need to legalise homosexual marriage, so homosexual parents can get all the tax breaks that heterosexual parents get.
Either way, until there is a pre-requisite of "you must have babies or be willing to have babies" attatched to governmental marriage, the procreation argument is irrelevant.
The majority decision also held that the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections. Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional.
Which is why we need to legalise homosexual marriage, so homosexual parents can get all the tax breaks that heterosexual parents get.
Either way, until there is a pre-requisite of "you must have babies or be willing to have babies" attatched to governmental marriage, the procreation argument is irrelevant.
If a gay couple do adopt children, then I'm all in favor of them getting a government endorsed civil union, because now they are taking part in raising the next generation of citizens.
The procreation argument is that men and women will make babies if they have sex, so we want sexually active adults to get married. Even if the couple are not planning on making a baby, they still can, and will.
If one million gay male couples live together for a few months or a few years, fall out of love and split up, they have no negative impact on the nation. So we don't have any reason to wish they get married.
If one million couples of men and women live together for a few months or a few years, fall out of love and split up, they have a negative impact on the nation, because of the bastard children they created. So we do have a real concern that they get married and stay married.
If a gay couple do adopt children, then I'm all in favor of them getting a government endorsed civil union, because now they are taking part in raising the next generation of citizens.
How about straight couples without children? Is it your position that the rights of civil marriage/civil unions should only be conferred to couples once they have children?
If it's a bad thing, then you agree with me and most of the nation, when we approve of promoting and endorsing marriage for the men and women giving birth to these children. We will become a lesser nation is our children are being raised by single parents.
Sure. Children deserve to be born into a loving home with committed married parents regardless of gender. Gay marriage will have no effect on children. You are doing all that you can to justify your prejudice.
Don't be silly, you said ''MARRIAGE IS FOR PROCREATION" is irrelevant to the government who cares not if you have babies"
Not seeing anywhere in that statement that I said that children are irrelevant to the future of the nation.
Just irrelevant to goverment recognition of marriage, as nowhere on the marriage contract or nowhere in tax laws state that you must have babies or be willing to have babies to have a child.
If you want marriage contracts to state that, feel free to rally the federal government to make such changes.
As it is, though, it's not relevant in the slightest and cannot be used as an argument against homosexual marriage.
Which is why we need to legalise homosexual marriage, so homosexual parents can get all the tax breaks that heterosexual parents get.
Either way, until there is a pre-requisite of "you must have babies or be willing to have babies" attatched to governmental marriage, the procreation argument is irrelevant.
Would the opponents of same sex marriage rather have those tax breaks eliminated for heterosexual parents than have homosexual parents be able to access them?
Would the opponents of same sex marriage rather have those tax breaks eliminated for heterosexual parents than have homosexual parents be able to access them?
Don't be silly, you said ''MARRIAGE IS FOR PROCREATION" is irrelevant to the government who cares not if you have babies"
If you cannot be rational, why even have a discussion?
He's correct. I have some good friends back in Denver who are married. They never want children, so much so that the husband had a vasectomy at age 25.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
