“Homos can’t reproduce. You can’t change that basic biological fact. And no, the fact that some couples cannot have children does not change the basic biology involved.”
Homosexual couples can and do reproduce, and have many of the same options available as any infertile heterosexual couple. What “basic biology” are you talking about? Want to be more specific? You write with such passion, but you don’t back up your statements. If you do believe marriage should only be permitted between individuals who can and will produce biological children without intervention, then you must believe infertile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marry. And if you don’t, why? You can’t just say “because!” You have to come up with a reason.
I agree with you, though, the government may have no business issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That would be a good solution at this point. Take out the word “marriage” from civil unions and leave that to religions. Give opposite and same-sex couples civil unions/domestic partnerships/what-have-you for legal purposes.
Take turkey basters and sperm of the day coupons out of the equation, absent infidelity, a Homosexual couple cannot reproduce as a result of their union.
The Gay Marriage debate is about destruction of the nuclear family. The march to communism continues..
That’s about enough.
Taking your argument and extending it, why on Earth should the government have civil unions at all? If you’re really a libertarian and not a leftist troll, then you probably don’t support tax breaks for married couples, government health insurance, and the like. Why should there be a thing such as joint filing? As for “divorce”, why shouldn’t each person’s property belong to him/herself when people decide to split up? What’s the libertarian justification for alimony or child support? Why couldn’t joint ownership of a home be handled on its own without the obsolete ideas of “union”? Come on now, live the libertarian dream. Every person for himself.
Also, on the issue of this California decision, let’s just get to the chase, because whether or not one supports this decision isn’t the real issue. The only issue most non-Californians give a dang about is whether the federal courts will eventually shove gay marriage down their states’ throats. In light of that, do you think the US Constitution requires states to give marriage licenses to gay couples if they make them available to straight couples? That’s what this is really about.