Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Which is like saying you can order anything off the menu as long as its chicken noodle soup.



Uh huh, and anyone can order off that "Chicken Soup Only" menu. Homosexuals and straights alike.

Quote:

1. infertile men and women marry all the time.



There's no way to police that. That's a legal finagle moreso than a flaw. You can't measure the success of how something works based on an uncharacteristic breakdown. Men and women naturally have the ability to procreate and so we operate on that average. Just because there's sterile individuals out there, that doesn't mean we should abandon the fact that our bodies normally work a certain way that's more convenient for our system.

Furthermore, while the taxcuts work immediately for the couple, the pre-child cuts aren't very comparable to the ones recieved after you have a kid--Which is what I meant by "potential and/or definite".

Quote:

2. if population growth is your aim then multiple partners, as shown in the bible, is the best way to go.



This has nothing to do with population growth all on its own. It's about making sure the growth is socially stable.

Also, the Bible doesn't say anywhere that it condones multiple marriages dumbass. Just because you see stories with people who have mutliple wives, that doesn't mean it was okay.

Quote:

and you can show me statistics on a generation of gay married couples held up against straight couples?



I don't need to because, once again, homosexual couples aren't going to have any unexpected pregnancies. Straights, however, are.

Quote:

????



Gay marriage would unecessarily cause higher tax increase.

Quote:

i think that's the dumbest point ever. blind people are more likely to get hit by a car than a sigthed person, should they be the only ones allowed to have medical insurance?



What the hell are you going on about? I just explained to you that homosexuals won't have unexpected pregnancy and you rant about blind people and cars. There is no "likelihood" involved in the gay reproduction matter, because the only way to reproduce is with a male and female or with a female and some purchased spermine. You're scenario is in no way analogous with situation of homosexuals.

Quote:

so you avoid the actual point and make a personal attack?



I already addressed your "point" previously. I was just pointing out your repetition through ad hominem.

Quote:

tradition isn't always a good thing.



Holy crap, you are so stupid. I'm the one talking about legal contracts. You're the one who's talking about tradition.

Quote:

Long tradition of women not being allowed to vote, of cheating spouses being stoned, of witch trials and iquisitions, of slavery, racism, sexism, crime, war, poverty, etc.



Wow, you really have a skewed definition of the word "tradition".

Quote:

If you want to deny someone a chance to be happy in life based on some potential, and baseless, tax reason then I will have to again point out that you are a pathetic human being.



They can get married. Just not with taxcuts.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Both would fit my description, but if you're asking me how I view marriage, then the answer is definitely a government institution. I think it's fine that the religiously-inclined place a great deal of importance and ritualization in it, but the fact of the matter is: today, marriage is a legal contract.



That's pretty much the point I've been trying to make here. Posters like r3x have been spending so much time ranting about how marriage isn't a religious tradition anymore that he hasn't taken into mind the fact that I've been talking about marriage as a government institution. Marriage hasn't technically changed over the years so much as its just started associating itself with government. One can still get married without legal obligations, but its current relation to government is exactly what I'm trying to cover.