HUZZAH! Thank you sir.

State sanction of marriage has always been about exclusion, anyway. Shouldn’t even be involved in the first place.

Here’s a thought from a while ago:

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2007/11/why-license-marriage.html

There are only two specific issues here that merit consideration. Should two consenting adults be allowed to merge their finances into a single entity, and should a consenting adult be able to appoint whomever he/she wishes to have access to and/or be given authority to act upon their medical condition. I think that under current law, both of these issues are available with a joint power of attorney document, albeit at a considerable cost I suppose. And I don’t believe that the lawyer will even ask who you are f*****g when the document is drawn up.

The question of sexual relations needs to be seperated from the legal aspects of this issue. Let anyone who wants to join in such a union do so with a standard legal document which should be easily accesible to anyone at little to no cost, rather than having to hire a lawyer. Let the families, friends, church, etc. of the individuals deal with the ceremonial aspect and the question of who is f*****g who.

If not this, then to be fair I suppose we should outlaw the use of condems, oral sex, and a host of other sexual activities that are clearly a sin because they do not lead to procreation.

Oh, poor you. Not allowed to pass judgment on people and condemn them as you see fit.

Nobody’s re-written history, just corrected your willful misinterpretation.

And people can post whatever they’d like on their blogs. That doesn’t mean they’re not going to get called out if it’s dumb. I respect their right to say things, but I don’t have to respect the things they say.

And if you’re really so hung up on this “natural” intent thing, boy are you going to have issues with H+ and Transhumanism.

I forgot its 2009 and the majority has no rights. You win.

As usual, you don’t get it. It’s not all about you, though you might think it.

I was pointing out that gay people are much less of a threat to society than the people who most often claim they are.

Indiana state law allows first cousins to be married if they are both over the age of 65. If suitability for reproduction is the criteria for official recognition of a marriage, should this law be changed?

Atleast we know who was name calling first.

Hey, Me wants to go on about moral decay. At least I provided real-world examples… Not that they have anything to do with anyone else but the conservative types that tend to talk the worst about gays.

I wouldn’t say stupid so much as “ironically amusing.”

You were doing pretty good until the last paragraph. Then you got totally stupid. Yes, stupid, not ignorant.

Hahaha. So are we going to start verifying that people actually possess genitals and that they’re the right type and function correctly before the state recognizes their marriage?

To put it BLUNTly, nature doesn’t intend anything. You’re anthropomorphizing. And you mentioned God, sorry, you brought religion into it. And what hold does nature have over an inherently social contract/union, church-blessed or otherwise?

Just because there are other laws in regard to marriage doesn’t make this one right or just. Also, you might want to look up that “pursuit of happiness” bit.

It’s really amusing to watch you fail to justify this over and over. But we’d better hurry up and fix it I guess, before those awful gay people destroy the morality of society even more than they have!

More right-wingnut straight white guys might have to kill abortion doctors and blow up federal buildings while Republican politicians cheat on their wives and take wide stances in airport bathrooms if we don’t!

I did not bring religion into this. I brought simple biology into this.

As far as the evolution comment, I guess i may have used the wrong word. But since your looking to win an arguement by glossing over facts, i’ll be more plunt. The body parts are intended to be used with other body parts. When you go aginst that it would be against the way nature intends.

Denying a group of people basic human rights is pretty hateful, I’m afraid. Deny it if you wish.

As I thought. You couldn’t do it without bringing religion into it.

(BTW, there is no god. Just because you believe in fairy tales doesn’t mean the rest of us must be forced to.)

And clearly you don’t understand what evolution is if you think it “intends” anything.

But then, you make it pretty clear that if you don’t agree with something you’ll just ignore or dismiss it outright. The convoluted “logic” of your last paragraph makes that clear.

Now last time i checked, men and women have differance parts. So either its immoral, against the laws of nature or whatever you want to call it, its not the way GOD or evolution intended it. To say that something is aginst the laws of nature does not mean i hate.

As for the roman empire stuff. If it wasn’t a somewhat accepted theroy, it would not have a paper from 1980 form some gay organitation trying to dispute it. There are also may places i can go to give you information about how the moon landing was fake but that does not make it true