Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

Not true at all. Republicans support their female candidates quite well. The interesting thing is that whenever we do run a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann or a Christine O'Donnell, it's the "female friendly" left that is always the harshest on them. A quick Google search of any of those three women will reveal a ton of sexist liberal hate toward them.

The main reason people don't want to use condoms isn't because of efficacy. It's because they don't like the way they feel. Which is not a legitimate reason to make other people pay for your birth control.

It is if their body is killing someone else. You certainly wouldn't accept me choking someone to death and claiming I can do what I want with my own hands. Nor should you. It's a ridiculous argument. Your rights end where the child's begin. And the child has a right to life once you have conceived it.

 

Procreation is not and has NEVER been a stipulation for getting a marriage license. Check your county clerks office for wording. Does it say procreation??? Nope. That is not the purpose of the license.

 

As to condoms, it's the MEN who don't like how they feel.....which places the burden right back on the women.

And we'll never agree on abortion. I would never have an abortion myself. But I am the only one who can make this decision for me. At some point there may be a real answer as to when life begins, but neither you nor I have it. Let's just let this one drop.

 

???? It is only when procreation occurs that government has a concern for the wellbeing of the children. When a child is born, there are only two people in the world obligated by law to support the child, the mother who gave birth and the man who fathered the child. His or her gay lover has no role in the process.

 

Heterosexuals arent encouraged to marry because they are required to procreate but instead because they are the only couples who physically can procreate.

 

Yeah, like I said, gays want to eliminate any government encouragement of mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children together as opposed to the alternative of one or none of them doing so. Eliminate any preference for the nuclear family. All because it offends the gays who cant participate in the process of procreation. Believing that their orgasms must be elevated to equal status with the perpetuation of the human species. Like selfish children, only interested in their own self interest and no concern for the rest of society. If they cant have it, nobody can.

 

Only you have said that procreation is a stipulation of marriage. Licensing and regulation of marriage IS a way to prevent irresponsible procreation. There is no other identifiable purpose to license relationship between a man and a woman.
Like driver license is a reasonable attempt to prevent irresponsible driving.
And by the way, how is it possible for country clerk to require procreation before marriage?

 

I'm sure you have a link to demonstrate this.

 

This has NOTHING to do with marriage equality. You are off topic. Procreation responsibilities and marriage equality are two different things.

 

A marriage license was NEVER meant to ENCOURAGE responsible parenting. Never. Responsible people will have marriage before children, irresponsible ones will not. The license has NOTHING to do with it.

YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Here is the original purpose for the marriage license:

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.[1] By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism, however it is rare for the licensing process to be used in this manner today.

The specifications for obtaining a marriage license vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the license is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's license, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required, by someone who had been previously married in some states).

 

From modern times

Just as it was in BC Roman law, and at everytime between then and now.

 

Thats not the "original purpose". Dates of when states eliminated common law marriage, instead requiring a license. Its original intent had nothing to do with what it was eventually used by states with bans on interracial marriage.

 

The more I read your views and conclusions, the more I realize the existing laws (which discriminate against homosexual couples) need to be revised or repealed.

 

That is brilliant info! Thanks for finding that out. So the reason not to allow people of the mixed race to get married was procreation.
As you can conclude the general purpose to regulate and license relationship between a man and a woman is procreation.
No regulation or licensing is required for other couples of any type.

 

Nope, they discriminate IN FAVOR of heterosexual couples. NOT because they are not homosexual but intead because they have the potential of procreation.

 

People had children without marriage (common law) until someone got it in their head that marriage needed exclusions. The license was to EXCLUDE people of so called "inferior" races from mating with white people. Of course, procreation was going along just fine with no marriage needed, but the bigots needed it for their purposes.
So the marriage license was not to protect or persuade families to reproduce, but to keep the white race pure.

 

That is exactly what I was saying. Marriage license is a tool to regulate procreation.
Since same sex couples have no procreation marriage license is IRRELEVANT for them.

 

Only men and womenwere joined in commom law marriage. It is living together as husband and wife that creates a common law marriage.

 

The laws need to be changed; that is why scores of people support accomplishing the same.

 

The laws need to be changed; many are against them and they ultimately will be.

 

That is essentially irrelevant to the discussion today.

 

Licensing and regulation of a relationship between man and a woman does not affect you. Not sure what is your point and how you going to change a law, if that law has nothing to do with other types of relationships.

 

Nope, the same biological requirements of procreation, that have existed since mammals evolved, continues today.

 

Procreation was doing just fine without the license. It was not necessary until prejudice raised it's ugly head. The license had nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with exclusion and bigotry.
Today it is a symbol and a promise of fidelity. it still has nothing to do with procreation.