[NutCrackerBoy]

Homosexual unions never produce children, heterosexual unions often do. Protection of children is the reason the state has a compelling interest in marriage. That is a compelling reason for the state to ignore homosexual unions.

However, your argument is not at all convincing that therefore, to be fair or some such thing, the state must rigorously step in and outlaw marriage between heterosexual couples who cannot or do not want to produce children.

These silly arguments have been answered again and again on these threads.

[breakem]

Our neighbors, two women, married by their minister have a child. One of them went to the clinic and contracted with the sperm donor. I guess they produced a child to some extent.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Protection of children is the reason the state has a compelling interest in marriage."

Let me get this straight.

You are in a Conservative forum arguing that the State is acting in the best interest of our children, and that's why homosexuals who are unable to bear children are not allowed to marry?

Would you be making reference to the same State that legalizes killing a million fetuses a year?