[wku man]

Producing children isn't an effective argument, because the homos counter that not all married couples are capable of having children. Is that marriage still valid? What then, they ask. I've yet to hear a good answer.

The guy referred to in the article has the most solid answer, simply that "marriage" means a man and a woman. What the homos want isn't the right to marry, they want the right to redefine what marriage is. That's why it's vitally important to have a pre-PC dictionary, so when they try to pull up some online dictionary definition of "a union between two people", you can slam the book on them, so to speak.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Edward Teach]

That’s a logical fallacy, I believe called unrepresentative sample. Infertile heterosexual couples are the exception, rather than the rule, whereas two homos can hump each other until kingdom come and that action will NEVER produce offspring.

I do like the definition of a marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, and I’ve also for a long time been arguing that there is no mechanism in place to deny those who engage in homosexuality the right to enter into this union AS IT HAS BEEN DEFINED.