Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: arbitrary.squid

You don’t get it.

I AM TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGY.

I am addressing the meaning of “marriage” in every society since antiquity, including these United States ... and FWIW, the laws of the State of Kentucky agree with biological reality.

The Supreme Court is wrong.

YOU are wrong.

Neither you nor the Supreme Court evidence the faintest idea what “marriage” is. Neither you nor the Supreme Court evidence the faintest comprehension that “Man” and “Woman” are by nature not interchangeable; that they are by nature distinct categories of “thing”.

“Marriage” is a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN, based on their complementary biology and different nature. It is nothing else. It has never BEEN anything else. It cannot BE anything else. And that reality is NOT dependent on any particular religion.


199 posted on 09/04/2015 12:55:47 PM PDT by NorthMountain ("The time has come", the Walrus said, "to talk of many things")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: NorthMountain

That is a RELIGIOUS definition.

No one is mandated by government that they must reproduce in order to have a civil marriage.

No one.


201 posted on 09/04/2015 1:02:29 PM PDT by arbitrary.squid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

To: NorthMountain

I AM TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGY.

Biology doesn’t require that two people be married in order to procreate.

There is no biological prerequisite to be married. The law currently states that any two adults not closely related can get married.

They don’t have to procreate. They don’t have to have sex. All that is required is a desire to be seen in the eye of the law as married.


206 posted on 09/04/2015 1:07:00 PM PDT by arbitrary.squid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson