[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
I guess you've never heard of "common-law marriage." Or getting married by the Captain of a ship.

I say:
I guess you didn't notice it is specifically called a "common-law" marriage, and distinguished semanticly from regular, religious type marriage. As far as being married by a Captain, I believe there is an issue of proving recognition in your area to receive tax benefits from the marriage.

The point is, marriage spawned from religion, and was UN-consitutionally adopted into U.S. law and provided tax benefits for those who participated. Its variety of ways acheiving the benefits provided for marriage expanded over time, much as it should by LOGIC to homosexuals.

You also seem to disregard that there is a NORM established for homosexuality. It has been observed in all forms of mammals I believe, though I can't guarantee ALL forms, I do KNOW a great many have been proven. IT occurs in nature, without mans influence.

Your basic argument about society structure is running on vague preconceptions. There is a lot to be understood about societies needs, and the best way to manage it. The main thing about a society though, is it has laws inherantly, because without laws a society doesn't last very long AS a society.

Those laws are set by the people that make up a society, and government and society must abide by those laws equally. In our Constitution in our society, managing society as you condone is not Constitutional, therfore, would be in essence, against the basic rules set forth by the society.

You also seen to evoke the thought that "allowing" homosexual marriages would STOP regular marriage from occuring, and would seriously spike a loss of reproduction.

I have to wonder where those ideas would come from, since they appear to make no apparent sense at all to me.