Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
America has a history of valuing marriage and family. The ability to procreate plays a substantial role in that state interest. Thus, benefits provided to encourage the creation of families are going to be much more controversial when provided to couples who don't have the ability to naturally procreate.
|
The institution today isn't even what it was 50 years ago, much less 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. It certainly isn't a stagnant thing.
Your argument about procreation holds no water. If the ability to procreate plays a substantial role in the state interest, then why doesn't the state REQUIRE a man and a woman to bear children in order to get married?
Furthermore, allowing gays and lesbians to get married with have absolutely NO bearing on the procreation equation anyway.
If people - gay or straight - want to have children, they will find a way regardless of marriage. You are using the procreation argument where there is NO BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT.
Threaded Mode
