[Askel5]

=== Tell me where do you draw the line on who can or cannot be afforded all the privileges of marriage?


The privileges of marriage should be reserved for those who commit themselves 100% to the marriage. If you wish to pin your argument on the "natural" machinations by which heteros reproduce, you must then admit that a line must be drawn at artificial contraception and at artificial procreation.

Had this line been drawn, had we afforded marital privileges only to those who freely obligated themselves to the responsibilities (namely, Children) naturally a part of that union, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

But heteros wish to have their cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately, that's not going to be the case. Having etched in stone the "right" not to procreate and having etched in stone the "right" to manufacture children, we are now committed to an Artificial Reality already blessed by specific State-Sanction wherein there are no grounds on which to distinguish between the "marriage" of heterosexuals (packing birth control, penning pre-nups and banking embryos) and homosexuals who also have the "option" of confecting their own progeny.

[Texasforever]

Well "bith control" is just that control. Now it is largely used to time the birth of kids and NOT just to "have their cake and eat it too". I think you are looking at this from your particular religious view that proscribes birth control under any circumstance. When two men can conceive and deliver a child without a 3rd party surrogate THEN you may have a case.