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.
I didn't say that married couples MUST have children.
I've said, that there's a difference between a relationship were people feel natural desire for each other and the anti-natural relationships. If you want to have sex with someone it means you WANT to have kids with that person, even if you dont really plan to actually have kids. Thus, sex is a natural mechanism for procreation. Having this fact in mind its very clear, that homosexual relationship is broken (you cannot have kids from you same-sex partner ever), anti-natural, and the same goes for homosexual marriage.
I just continue to believe the concept of marriage has changed and will continue to change over time. Marrying for love as opposed to convenience is relatively new. Arranged marriages have been happening for centuries. Those are now looked down upon, at least in the western world, but at one time that was the norm in many places. Yet, those marriages lacked the desire to WANT to have kids with that person because the person was often a stranger.
You wrote that in the classic concept of marriage people lacked the desire to have kids, still, they had much more children then they have now, with the modern concept.
I'm not saying they lacked the desire to have kids. I'm saying they didn't always marry because they were in love. I use this to support my position that the concept of marriage (and what society accepts as marriage) has changed over time.
The nature of what's being considered falsifying makes it pretty clear what the intent here is. I guess modifying the form to accommodate two men or two women is too much to ask. Ah well. Like the man said, "The avalanche has already started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote."
The "avalanche" was the blue states and now it's over.
All of America and all the rest of the world should be converted to the religion of homosexuality...it would stop over population...and it would be a wonderful world---- and only real smart people will be allowed to be born - incubated in labs of course...George Orwell is rolling ....sorry - spinning like a top in his grave.
Well, it's clear to you anyway. Has any same-sex couple actually been convicted or even arrested for filling out an application for a marriage license in the 15 years since same-sex marriage was affirmatively prohibited by the statute?
If a same-sex couple wants to apply for a license to make a protest statement, cross out one of the genders and replace it with the appropriate gender, then fill out the form and submit it. Why they should change the form to accommodate protest applications is beyond me.
It's so they can establish standing and take the state to court in hopes of overturning the expressed will of the people.
While I don't agree with or support that lifestyle, government involvement in marriage has gone too far.
What lifestyle? Working, playing, caring for children, taking the dog to the vet, vacations, cooking, cleaning, home repairs, shopping, running to the dry cleaners, PTA meetings, soccer, martial arts, scouts, doctor appointments, you know the average every day middle class lifestyle that my family lives?
I'd be interested in knowing which sites you're talking about. Porn sites are all about sex, whether gay or straight.
But perhaps you may not realize, the very largest gay (male) website is not a porn site. Its not about sex.
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.