wouldnt give a fuck unless u dont fuck with me.

No one has a right to marriage, and I challenge you to prove that one does. Your statement is logically no different than "straights can have children so denying gays is an affront to civil liberties." Like I said before, if you want to get married, do it in a church. There are probably churches that would do it now anyways.



Straw man argument. It isn't comparable to the concept of separate but equal, because the only difference is the title. If all rights are protected for all parties involved in all cases, which is the idea of the government ONLY recognizing civil unions, then no one is being treated unfairly. Changing the meaning of the word marriage to suit your purpose doesn't mean that it's separate but equal, because marriage has ALWAYS been about procreation, which is, of course, impossible for non-heterosexual unions.

marriage is absolutely not based on religious doctrine.

Because we bar the elderly and the infertile from marriage.

Nowhere did I conclude that people were entitled to a successful marriage.

You stated marriage has always been about procreation. Thats clearly false. Otherwise the elderly wouldn't be permitted to marry.

stop trying to push your equal rights nonsense on me, sioux

Government should have no say in the marriage process, etc.

Because it HAS been about procreation, not love. Since the dawn of civilization, man has felt a need to ensure that his progeny are indeed his, so he's entered into a contract with the family of the bride for "exclusive rights." As for the elderly, etc., you're simply building another straw man.

You didn't need to be married for procreation though :/ Times change bro. I know a few married couples who don't have kids.

This post was edited by lithfkn on Dec 20 2009 07:14pm