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.
Nope. Straight couples have the ability. Gays NEVER have the ability.
The elderly couple getting together after meeting at the 55+ club will NEVER have the ability to mate and use their penis and vagina to have a kid.
Likewise, a straight guy shooting blanks, a woman with a hysterectomy, etc., will NEVER have the ability to have their sex turn into a baby, even if their partner is not infertile.
So, in your twisted little world, they are "not as good" couplings as the much exalted, "heterosexuals who can produce a baby."
Honestly, why should we even let the infertile and the aged marry?
That's not exactly what I was referring to. At some point the law was defined by an opinion or a standard. The law did not create marriage, marriage precedes the law, so in order to make it law, it came from somewhere, which is what I was saying. That does not have anything to do with redefining marriage. I am only speaking about where did the law originally create that definition from.
Civil marriage absolutely does not precede the law. Civil marriage is a legal construct - it is a legal institution created and defined entirely by civil marriage law. It creates and confers some 1000 legal rights to couples that wish to have them.
If Colorado, tomorrow, decided to pass a law repealing all civil marriage statutes and abolishing the institution of civil marriage in Colorado, it absolutely could do so. All civilly married couples in Colorado would lose access to the legal rights of civil marriage, and nobody in Colorado could gain access to them in the future. I don't think that would be a good idea (I like the legal rights we've crafted and attached to civil marriage), but it's something that Colorado certainly could do.
You do realize we're talking about civil marriage, not religious/traditional/private marriage? Those are two separate and unrelated things.
Quote:
That's not true at all. Somebody had to determine what is considered right or wrong under the law. That is based on morality. You cannot determine that murder is wrong if you don't have a moral standard.
Sure you can. You can use an objective harm standard - a standard that asks does the action prejudice the rights of others, and if so, it's impermissible. Murdering somebody prejudices that person's Constitutionally protected right to life, therefore it is impermissible.
But it's possible. They were born with the ability. Can you say the same for a gay couple?
Yes. Being gay does not mean you cannot have sex with the opposite sex. With enough friction anything is possible.
But sex acts do not equal sexual orientation. If you've ever watched a "lesbian" acting in porn geared for straight men, you'd understand.
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.
