[Starboy]

So what.

Black man + slavery = right.

Black man + slavery = wrong.

You argument is about tradition. Nobody is arguing that people who want to observe your concept of a marriage will no longer be allowed to. You do not have to squeeze everything into a binary universe. Tradition doesn't require that my tradition is right therefore your tradition is wrong. Tradition can allow for both traditions to be right. You are using an artificial constraint as if it were an argument.

Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse = Children = RIGHT!
and
Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse x Marriage = Children = RIGHT!
and
Man + Man = family = RIGHT!
and
Women + Women = family = RIGHT!

The earth will not careen off its axis if gays are allowed to get government marriage licenses. You seem to have this very narrow and formulaic view of how people must be. That is fine; you are free to live by it. But for some reason you are not content to be able to do this. You demand that everyone live by it whether they want to or not.

You have said that a homosexual couple and a childless heterosexual couple should be identical as far as marriage is concerned. I responded that anytime a heterosexual couple has sex there is a chance of producing children and that a heterosexual couple is supposed to marry before they engage in sexual intercourse (i.e. have babies.) Sex between a man and woman is not just a fun thing to do that has no biological, legal, or moral consequences.

I know you have said this. I never said you didn't. But so what? There are also hetero couples that get married and are sterilized and have no children and have no intention of having children. Yet they are married. There are even couples that were sterilized before they were married. Yet they have the marriage license. They have state recognition of their family. You may think that this is immoral. Good for you. But it is not illegal and by the morals of other people and other religions it is perfectly moral. You see you are still trying to squeeze everybody into your tradition. Yet no one is stopping you from practicing your own. How would you like it if the shoe were on the other foot? You see in a society that values freedom and equality you are free to practice your traditions as you see fit and others are allowed to do the same. Somehow this has escaped you.

You have said that adoption and natural child birth are the same thing. I responded that adoption is a legal process in and of itself.

When did I say this?

You have said that homosexual couples are being denied equal rights under the law. I responded that any man and any woman may get married if they meet the basic requirements and that sexual preference does not enter into it (And, even if it did, "discrimination" based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional.) I have stated clearly the purpose of marriage while you have not offered a viable alternative purpose that fits the history of marriage. If marriage is simply a recognition of a family, why is it that sex between some family members is acceptable and between others unacceptable?

Incest is discouraged because of social taboo. You see marriage has nothing to do with those taboos. They are taboo with or without marriage. They are based on people observing that human inbreeding is not good for the stock.

If marriage is simply about property, why is it that responsible women were expected to marry before sex even when they could not own property?

Expected by whom? Perhaps by you but not by most people. That was then, this is now. Most people are having sex before marriage these days. You may not like it but it appears to have nothing to do with marriage. You would have a point if the clerk down at city hall would not issue a license if there was premarital sex but they do not. You see it is not against the law. Maybe biblical law but this is not about biblical law.

If marriage is about family and property, with no requard to sexual intercourse, why is the majority of divorce law based on assumptions about the role of men and women in the biological process of creating children?

What are you talking about? If you don't have any children then there is no divorce law regarding children that applies. There are laws regarding children because there are people who get divorced that have children. But there are also plenty of people who get divorced that do not have children. I gotta tell you perfect, these are very stupid arguments.

All I see you doing is constraining marriage to what you think it ought to be not to what it actually is. There are millions of people getting married and divorced in this country. They have many different reasons for doing both and a great many of them do not conform to your idea of what a marriage ought to be. If they can get married then gays should be able to get married. That is what it means to have equal treatment under the law. Unless you propose to change the marriage laws to conform to your restricted view of what a marriage must be you do not have an argument. All you have is a "straw man" because what you constrict a marriage to be is not the only kind of marriage that is currently being allowed.

I must say mr.perfect, you are becoming perfectly tedious.

Starboy