What, no Armageddon?

[patriot45]

So gay couples aren’t able, some how, to adopt - have a surrogate - or artificially inseminate? Is there a law I’m not up to speed on?

Quote by others-

These are the considerations that make many sincere people balk at the notion of same-sex marriage. Such a "marriage" can certainly be based on love, and even entail the adoption and raising of children, but it cannot, by definition, eventuate in children generated by the couple in question.

[LogansPapa]

Quote by others-

So, by that statement - it would be better not to adopt the child?

[linda22003]

"it cannot, by definition, eventuate in children generated by the couple in question."

This argument makes no sense to me. My husband and I married with no intention of having children, and our marriage is valid. Elderly people marry each other all the time, with no intention or ability of having children, and their marriages are valid.

[megimoo]

"otehr"? Shit - no wonder I can't keep up.;)

learn to interpolate FGS !

[LogansPapa]

learn to interpolate FGS !

:D(okay - funny shit right there. Don't care where you're from.):p

[Vepr]

No. the next step will inevitably be someone who wants to have 2 wives. I mean...there's already TV shows about this type thing.
Or maybe it will be the NAMBLA bunch who argue that 15 year old boys are able to have relationships with adult males. That's what is next IMO.

As long as I do not have to pay for their kids or support them in any other way and they are not treading on someone’s constitutional rights I don’t care how many wives or husbands someone has. If a guy is a glutton for punishment and wants to have more than one then have at it.

As far as underage marrying goes I do not consider it any better when a 30 some year old male marries a 15 year old female which happens way more often than what you mentioned. But that is not a gay marriage issue that is a state law issue on underage marriage.

[patriot45]

"it cannot, by definition, eventuate in children generated by the couple in question."

This argument makes no sense to me. My husband and I married with no intention of having children, and our marriage is valid. Elderly people marry each other all the time, with no intention or ability of having children, and their marriages are valid.

It certainly makes sense to me. You are not gay, by definition, a gay couple cannot generate thier own children.
Unless they mutate even more.

[linda22003]

I'm not aware that any institution apart from the Catholic Church demands the intention or possibility of procreation as a qualifier for marriage. The state certainly does not demand it, nor has it any business doing so.

[wilbur]

It certainly makes sense to me. You are not gay, by definition, a gay couple cannot generate thier own children.
Unless they mutate even more.

So then we should only allow marriage for fertile couples in child rearing age groups who intend to have children? No old couples, no sterile people, and especially not those crazies that just don't want kids.

[lacarnut]

Who knows? God is pretty busy smiting the Heartland right now.

Right: He got N.O. and CA could be next.