Replies

=== The hetero-couple can "control" procreation whereas the Homo-couple can't procreate at all without heroic intervention. Why do you think the gay community call heterosexuals "breeders".

I am perfectly aware of the disdain in which "breeders" are held by killer queens -- mostly the 35 or younger Gay Pride sorts.

It's much the same as that centuries- and decades-old contempt evidenced by Protestants and earth-conscious New Agers, respectively where Catholics or others with the audacity to have more than two children are concerned.

If you're NOT aware of how critical the issue of "breeding' and controlling breeders is, I can link you to the GOP's 1970 report from their "Earth Resources and POpulation" task force. It's not like the more hateful little queens got their talking points on over-population and crowding out of thin air, you know.

That in no way changes the fact that homosexuals who can "control" their breeding even more effortlessly than heteros (their sex being naturally non-procreative and their incomes more suited to purchasing children to spec with the donation of materials from self or others) see no essential difference between hetero "marriage" and homo "marriage".

Heteros have the "Right" to enjoy a perfectly non-procreative marriage and the "right" to artifically conceive enough children than one or more may be actually birthed. So do homos.

What's the dif?

What's the dif?

The "diff" is simple. Marriage is not a civil right. Homosexuals can say their vows to a fence post and consider themselves "married" and I don't care. However, there is enough pressure on the INSTITUTION of marriage without adding a completely alien form into the mix. Once we start down that road then other alien forms will demand entrance. I saw an article the other night saying there are now 20+ "sexual preferences and gender identities" now are being used within the "gay and lesbian community". Tell me where do you draw the line on who can or cannot be afforded all the privileges of marriage?