"So I guess couples who can't produce children aren't eligable either? If you can't reproduce you can't have children or shouldn't be married?"
Yeah, you're a whiz at illogic. Marriage is an institution because the union of one man and one woman is the only kind of union that CAN procreate, not because it happens in every specific relation. Marriage applies to the type of relation. Get it?
No, of course you don't. You think men and women can transmogrify. Apparently, if you defend this article, you believe people can also transcend their "age" and be any age they want. A teenage man can't transform himself into a 50-something woman. Ha-ha.
So. Persist in your fantasies. But my right is to refuse to participate in them.
So. Persist in your fantasies. But my right is to refuse to participate in them.
Somewhere I think we got lost in the text. I'm not defending gay marriages and believe as you do that marriage should be just as you describe. I think I was attempting to question the charge that those outside of marriage aren't capable and shouldn't be allowed to raise children. I'm suggesting that there are thousands out there who don't fit the mold who could and would raise a child in a loving enviroment. Gay, straight, married, single shouldn't be the only criterion when so many children are alone, unloved and will never have a chance in life without the help of those willing to help but are denied the opportunity.
I am in full agreement that the ideal situation is for a loving married couple to raise a child. I do believe however that there are millions of kids who will never be part of that perfect family and we shouldn't write them off simply because the perfect married couple is not available.