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.
But it is not what you gays do in private they want the same recognition as real marriages. Two guys can't have children and can't marry. That should be simple.
Two guys can adopt, or have biological children through surrogates, and yes in 8 states they can marry.
What's fair? Two guys can't have children together, can't add anything to the society. There is no fair comparison here. Privilegdes to marriages are not for enjoyment but protection of children.
An infertile couple can't have children either and add nothing to society. Children are not a requirement for marriage.
Quote:
Stop pretending that you don't know that mariag had always been in our culture about a union of a man and a women for the purpose of bearing and rasing children. That's tradition and it can't be changed. Leave marraieg alone!
Tradition changes all the time. It has already changed on this issue. Deal with it. Nobody cares what you think about marriage traditions. You are on the wrong side of history.
First of all because I support equal rights does not mean I'm gay, secondly since I live in a more liberal progressive country than you do, two guys can marry and adopt and raise kids, and as I said before do a far better job raising those kids than you could ever hope to do....Teaching your kids that some people don't deserve equality is poor parenting.
It should constitute child abuse, but we allow people like him to raise children to brainwash them with lies in this country.
It is not non-sequitur but you have reading-comprehnsion problems.
I never said gays can't conrtibute to society but gay marriages do not contribute to society as much as real marriages. Real marriages bring children I.e. future of this society to the world.
And what did you think marriage is about? Love? Sex? You can have that without marriage. Marriage has a function to estanslih families that will bring and raise children that society needs to survive.
So by your own logic straight couples that don't bring children into this world or adopt aren't real marriages, or is it only sick icky gays? You said real marriages bring children but yet you keep making exceptions for straights because apparently they don't bring the ick factor as much.
You are wrong. There is a good reason to prevent incest....What reason is there against gay marriage other than your religious beliefs....None.
It requires the definitions of normal, decent and acceptable to be so expanded that their meanings are of no consequence.
Since you brought it up, what are the good reasons to prevent close relatives from marrying that do not impact other marriages?
If I carry a destructive gene, should I be prevented from marrying for the very same reasons close relatives are?
And why should marriage be restricted to two persons?
If the sex of the participants is none of government's business, how is it the business of government to decide how many marriage partners may enter a marriage?
So by your own logic straight couples that don't bring children into this world or adopt aren't real marriages, or is it only sick icky gays? You said real marriages bring children but yet you keep making exceptions for straights because apparently they don't bring the ick factor as much.
There is no way to tell who will and not have children. Personally I don't understand why people would marry if they do not want kids. What is the point? People changed mind however and I know quite a few couples that did not want to have children and now are at number 2 or 3.
There is no way to tell who will and not have children. Personally I don't understand why people would marry if they do not want kids. What is the point? People changed mind however and I know quite a few couples that did not want to have children and now are at number 2 or 3.
yes but i never hear you or other people with your mindset saying they should have to have kids first so why only gays, if you can't have a baby at 85 why remarry or marry the first time let's make it fair and illegal since marriage is only for procreation...and make it to where if you don't have kids yet or at least one "in the oven" you can't marry that way it'd be for sure every couple would procreate...of course the bad thing is the earth is already overpopulated but that doesn't follow your logic so
There is no way to tell who will and not have children.
That's certainly not true in 100% of cases.
My 82 year old grandfather recently married his 82 year old girl-friend. Pretty close to 0% chance they were going to have more children.
Since you are such a staunch defender of marriage only being for children I would recommend that you recommend to law makers that marriage benefits only begin once a couple has a child and that the benefits end once the child dies or turns 18.
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.
