Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Heh, doesn't bother me, I do it all the time. It's just advice, is all.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
[DWYP-Safe]Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
- Status
I took the actual debate a lot more seriously. I'm just now kind of poking fun at extremists on both sides of the spectrum.
Oh, and one of my most common "philosphies" is this:
"If I say something's, it's right.
If I say it's wrong, it's wrong.
It's not about person A, and person B, just me.
If I think it should be outlawed, it should be outlawed
If I think it shoule be put into effect, it should.
If your opinion doesn't match mine, then iut mean nothing.
We don't need a government for the people, just one for me.
If it's against my beliefs, it is bad.
If it goes along with my thoughts, it should be law.
It's not about pleasing the public, it's about pleasing me.
If I wrote it, it has to be funny
Whatever I say goes, so shut up and do things my way.
I am the best. no more needs said."
How's that for insane belief?
~Tera253~
Oh, and one of my most common "philosphies" is this:
"If I say something's, it's right.
If I say it's wrong, it's wrong.
It's not about person A, and person B, just me.
If I think it should be outlawed, it should be outlawed
If I think it shoule be put into effect, it should.
If your opinion doesn't match mine, then iut mean nothing.
We don't need a government for the people, just one for me.
If it's against my beliefs, it is bad.
If it goes along with my thoughts, it should be law.
It's not about pleasing the public, it's about pleasing me.
If I wrote it, it has to be funny
Whatever I say goes, so shut up and do things my way.
I am the best. no more needs said."
How's that for insane belief?
~Tera253~
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
This type of thing is the exact opposite of someone who is smart enough, and unbiased enough to have an intelligent debate with. What is the point of debating someone who's views cannot be changed with fact and logic?
I think I will take the liberty and answer my own question, there is no point, and its just a waste of time. Debating with you is like trying to teach a blind man to see. Stop wasting everyone's time. If you are going to act like a little child, and don’t get me started on those **** pies, then maybe your in the wrong place. It was fun at first, but now everyone knows your absurd posts and they don't take you seriously anymore.
McCloud
je suis l'agent du chaos.
These aren't the debates you're looking for. Move along, move along.
This thread has gone horribly awry. Resuming from last coherent post:
Remember that movie from 1999, where humans were called viruses because they consumed and reproduced and drained resources, and then moved on? We sustain ourselves because there are resources left to drain. It'll be a good while until we run out. And then if we are indeed overpopulated (unlikely, with the current state of affairs today), then nature will take over. But overpopulation is generally not an issue pertinent to humans. Less you're in China. Bumping elbows and all that.
This thread has gone horribly awry. Resuming from last coherent post:
So in a sense, you're saying evolution favors us.
Remember that movie from 1999, where humans were called viruses because they consumed and reproduced and drained resources, and then moved on? We sustain ourselves because there are resources left to drain. It'll be a good while until we run out. And then if we are indeed overpopulated (unlikely, with the current state of affairs today), then nature will take over. But overpopulation is generally not an issue pertinent to humans. Less you're in China. Bumping elbows and all that.
That's the thing. SHOW me the logic, for crying out loud (or should I say whining like a pansy out loud). all you and DW have said is: *develops snotty voice* "you are staring logic straight in the face but you don't want to change." *end quote, snotty voice*
And McCloud, you've actually turned it towards evolution and overpopulation, which, I guess gay marriage could solve...
*takes peek over at DWYP to see how badly she lost*
cool. I really did lose. I guess that settles it then. Gay marriage should be legalized.
[/sarcasm]
Oh well, remember folks: when in doubt, play Smash Bros. It works every time.
The verdict: until we meet again, over and out.
~Tera253~
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
I honestly don't think we're overpopulated at present, but we're certainly getting there. Luckily, while trends are still towards humans increasing in numbers, it's not by a spectacular degree. So back the point I was making with the original argument of overpopulation: Homosexuality is no threat to our numbers. There are an incredible amount of people on the planet, and almost everywhere, the trend is towards the population growing. The scant minority of homosexual couples - even assuming that none of them employ in vitro fertilization - poses no threat in that respect. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't change that.These aren't the debates you're looking for. Move along, move along.
This thread has gone horribly awry. Resuming from last coherent post:
So in a sense, you're saying evolution favors us.
Remember that movie from 1999, where humans were called viruses because they consumed and reproduced and drained resources, and then moved on? We sustain ourselves because there are resources left to drain. It'll be a good while until we run out. And then if we are indeed overpopulated (unlikely, with the current state of affairs today), then nature will take over. But overpopulation is generally not an issue pertinent to humans. Less you're in China. Bumping elbows and all that.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
And I only respond here because this moves back in the direction of the actual debate, but...
You are proposing that we deny people a right. As almost any schoolchild can tell you, this is generally disliked by people who are convinced, somehow, that we are in a fairly democratic government, in which we value our rights quite a bit.
To deny someone a right must therefore be backed by a logical, pragmatic reason. Surely we don't allow the right to murder someone, because of course that harms the person being killed in quite an irreversible way, and really, doesn't help anyone in most cases.
So give me the logical, pragmatic reason that dictates the societal necessity of outlawing Gay Marriage, and you will have surprised me greatly. And please don't try to tell me I'm being hypocritical by calling you on your "I'm right becaue I said so" mentality, normally reserved for dictators and children who have yet to learn how to process abstract concepts.
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
DW you read my mind, EXACTLY! Especially the bolded parts.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
You know guys, you have to prove why it should be legalized. Tera is happy with the current law and sees no reasons for change, the burden of logic and reason comes from you guys. Once you prove why it should be allowed she has to refute that.
CK, that just earned you my vote in Forum awards.
DW, just like denying someone a right must be backed by logical, pragmatic reasoning, changing a law should be backed the same way. you didn't really show me why it should be changed, just like Crimson King said.
Oh, and Sargent_Peach, if I am treading (trampling) and making fun of your beliefs, just learn to take it. Tera gets that a lot from people who like to poke fun at Mormons. The answer to that is to A+B or A+C
(a) stop whining about it
(b) ignore it
(c) poke fun at some things THEY hold dear.
as for me, I just do D.
(d) not care about anything and poke fun at everything.
~Tera253~
Duke
it's just duke. nothing to get worried about.
Now now Tera that isn't what we are taught. Do not personally attack people, you can still act civilized in a debate.
McCloud
je suis l'agent du chaos.
Tera 4 Massive Lulz.
Other than arguments and such already stated and argued, there's not much else for us to say so that she will ignore. Boring.
But, for entertainment, I will begin quoting things.
"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"
" Loving v. Virginia, which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Justice Warren wrote:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. "
I see no difference in disallowing interracial marriage and disallowing gay marriage. Though homosexuals are not a separate race, they are people who currently do not hold the right to marry other people of their choice.
Annnd go.
DoH
meleeitonme.tumblr.com
Not choice. We don't choose like be gay, there's a biological need to be with someone of the same gender. Arguing choice opens up floodgates for other things.
Duke
it's just duke. nothing to get worried about.
I don't know enough on this topic to debate it either way. But I have always wondered, maybe you guys could help me answer this. If we do allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what is stopping a man from demanding his rights to marry his sister?
Again, I'm not asking this as an attack or giving my stance on the debate. I would just like the question answered.
Again, I'm not asking this as an attack or giving my stance on the debate. I would just like the question answered.
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
Incest is illegal for a reason. It is physically, and mentally harmful. Incest can cause an increase in physical deformities in children, and this does not even adress the problems the child will face by peers, and family.
Mentally harmful to the child, if there is one, and other family members. Sounds like enough to stop a man from marrying his sister to me.
Mentally harmful to the child, if there is one, and other family members. Sounds like enough to stop a man from marrying his sister to me.
McCloud
je suis l'agent du chaos.
Misinterpretation of words, DoH. Don't be so hasty to accuse me. <3 I said it was a choice to marry, as indeed it is a decision one must make. However, I also feel that it is not a choice to be gay.
Indeed.that is why I put 'ignore' there.
I however, am not afraid to make fun of both sides of the spectrum, but it jsut so happens that homosexuality seemes to be something that many people (myself included) seem to enjoy making fun of. it's like racism jokes.
Oh, and DaRkNeSsOfHeArT, that thing on homosexuality being genetic has yet to be proven. sheepy and I ranted LOOOOOoooong on that one.
On that topic, Sheepy, congrats on wasting me in the debate.
[/shrug]
~Tera253~
Duke
it's just duke. nothing to get worried about.
Who said they would be having sex?
Isn't one of the defense arguments for homosexuals that it isn't about having kids? If an anti-gay marriage arguer brings up the point that gays can't procreate then pro-gay marriage love to jump on the opportunity to bring up the fact that there are infertile heterosexual married couples. I'm pretty sure you've just dipped in your own argument.
My question stands.
McCloud
je suis l'agent du chaos.
Which is, of course, a very favorable and intelligent hobby that is clearly not detrimental to others.
Yet to be proven indeed, but at the same time there's no real turning point in your life, no decisive moment when you hit puberty and decide "Hm, do I like girls, or dudes?"
Though I do believe that one might subconsciously be affected by the environment.
Duke
it's just duke. nothing to get worried about.
Tera, you are embarrassing me and you are embarrassing yourself. Either debate one side or get out, please.
McCloud
je suis l'agent du chaos.
Embarrassing you, Duke? What is she, your lover or something?
This is more of a formal discussion; a Socratic, rather, than a pure debate, so she can actually switch sides or concede points if she wishes.
That being said, I find Tera's arguments repetitive in nature, as she frequenly draws red herrings and straw men rather than actually stating anything coherent and/or competent. Thus, I usually ignore them. Do likewise.
This is more of a formal discussion; a Socratic, rather, than a pure debate, so she can actually switch sides or concede points if she wishes.
That being said, I find Tera's arguments repetitive in nature, as she frequenly draws red herrings and straw men rather than actually stating anything coherent and/or competent. Thus, I usually ignore them. Do likewise.
The Mad Hatter
Smash Ace
Leviticus 18 verses 6 and 7 say, "None of you shall approach any who is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness."
As far as biblical text goes, thats the answer.
We would like to believe a daughter should feel comfortable spending time alone talking with her father without having to worry that her father is just another man interested in her body. We've said that the relationship between a brother and sister is to be one of love and trust.
To be honest I could really care less if a man marries his kin.
As far as biblical text goes, thats the answer.
We would like to believe a daughter should feel comfortable spending time alone talking with her father without having to worry that her father is just another man interested in her body. We've said that the relationship between a brother and sister is to be one of love and trust.
To be honest I could really care less if a man marries his kin.
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
Now for the science courtesy of Wikipedia.
"Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing, but when homozygous can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes which can contain various genetic problems have a tendency of showing up more often if joined by someone who has the same gene. "
If you don't care to read the science, here is an example.
If a son who has hemophilia has sexual intercourse with his sister who may have the same gene for hemophilia, and they have a child, the odds are in favor that the child will have hemophilia as well.
Inbreeding in nature is uncommon, natural selection has built in mechanisms to help stop this action. It has a detrimental effect on a species population, which makes it a thing that should not be viewed with a positive light.
Evolutionary scientists indicate that siblings that are raised together in the same family find each other sexually uninteresting. This is called the Westermarck effect. This shows that incest is unnatural, and unhelpful to society.
Mad Hatter, I have to disagree with you here when you say that you don't care if a man marries his kin. I do, it is harmful to society. (I know you were fighting agianst incest.)
@McCloud- I think Duke was saying as a Morman, I believe that both of them are Mormans.
"Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing, but when homozygous can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes which can contain various genetic problems have a tendency of showing up more often if joined by someone who has the same gene. "
If you don't care to read the science, here is an example.
If a son who has hemophilia has sexual intercourse with his sister who may have the same gene for hemophilia, and they have a child, the odds are in favor that the child will have hemophilia as well.
Inbreeding in nature is uncommon, natural selection has built in mechanisms to help stop this action. It has a detrimental effect on a species population, which makes it a thing that should not be viewed with a positive light.
Evolutionary scientists indicate that siblings that are raised together in the same family find each other sexually uninteresting. This is called the Westermarck effect. This shows that incest is unnatural, and unhelpful to society.
Mad Hatter, I have to disagree with you here when you say that you don't care if a man marries his kin. I do, it is harmful to society. (I know you were fighting agianst incest.)
@McCloud- I think Duke was saying as a Morman, I believe that both of them are Mormans.
Duke
it's just duke. nothing to get worried about.
Sargent, you obviously did not even read my post. Who said they would be having sex?
The Mad Hatter
Smash Ace
If they are not worried about sex why in the hell would they be worried about marriage? If they are not having sex that would make it a platonic relationship, which is not the purpose of marriage.
I am not for incest by any means. I know there are many more risks that can happen.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Alright, so a brother and sister get married, but never have sex (or even use some assured type of birth control), and thusly do not produce children with a hightened likelihood of inheriting genetic deformities in the family's genepool.
Now make an argument that doesn't involve genetically deformed offspring against incest between two consenting adults. The cultural stigma exists because of the biological issue already discussed. If this issue never comes up, consanguinous mating, although very strange, doesn't seem to raise any issue.
Really, it's not something I'd be particularly overjoyed to see happen, but it would be hypocritical for me to allow my personal biases to illegalize something without a pragmatic reason (which we're eliminating in this hypothetical) But then again, in the real world, how do we enforce that?
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
I think I've made that rather clear. To allow it to remain illegal would be to deny a group of people a right that we need not, for any logical reason, deny them.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
As I stated, I feel it SHOULD remain illegal solely because you are forcing a group of tax paying people to pay for something they do not morally support. Yes, there are other facets that tax payer dollars may go towards (wars that people don't agree with, but that goes under defense) and I think we shouldn't pay taxes period, but that's outside the argument. Basically, I am saying it should be illegal in a Libertarian society because by legalizing it you are making saying to the Ant-Gay Marriage "not only do you have to deal with it, but you are paying for this. Ha ha"
As for the incest scenario, if they are not having sex, they have no reason to even entertain the concept of marriage, so I am not sure why that would matter.
As for the incest scenario, if they are not having sex, they have no reason to even entertain the concept of marriage, so I am not sure why that would matter.
Sargent_Peach
Smash Journeyman
I started making my post, and got distracted and did something else. When I started your post wasn't up yet, its not that I didn't read it.
Are you saying that every incestuous relationship or marriage would not involve sex? Of course that is a ridiculous argument. As much as it pains me to say this, if the couple was not having sex, I don't see a "pragmatic" reason to outlaw it, but that is a big IF. If we were to allow incetuous marriages, couples WOULD HAVE SEX. Maybe not everybody, but probably 99.9%. I'm not sure that there is a married couple that hasn't had sex if they were able.
Does that anwser your question? You can add the ifs in there, but it is not how it would happen. No one has to say that the couple is having sex, it is understood, unless you can give me a reason that two consenting adults that "were married" would not have sex?
No, they don't have to prove why it should be legalized. All they have to do is give a feasible reason why it should be legalized.
Let's say, for example, that it is illegal to have south-facing windows on your house. We all know it's not, but let's just assume that it is. Wouldn't it be valid to demand the reasoning behind banning south-facing windows? Simply saying, "it's the status quo" is not enough.
"Status quo" is also not enough in this case. When denying someone a right, it's never enough.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
To propose that we not pay taxes is essentially to propose that we don't have a government. Taxes represent, if you will pardon my use of a somewhat strained analogy, a symbiotic relationship between the government and its people. The people are served and in some cases protected by the government (although with things like the patriot act, there are instances in which the government screws people over as well, but this is not the ideal condition and will hopefully soon be rectified), and the people, in turn, pay taxes in order to fund the government. Many politicians, particularly republicans of late, like to gain votes by promising to implement, and often actually implementing, tax cuts of some kind. This really does more harm than good. Without the revenue generated by taxpayer money, the government would have an incredibly difficult time financing much of anything, including public education, healthcare, etc.
And then there's the inherent flaw in the initial argument, this being that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things they don't support. This is in essence the same logic many use when justifying cutting taxes from education funds: If they don't have kids, why should they pay for public education? The fact of the matter is, if we want to have a government, a system of taxes is practically a given, unless somehow lottery programs and impossibly lucrative charities can be expected to keep an organization as enormous and expensive as a government together, which they really can't. If we argue that the government should stop any program that any group of tax-paying citizens disagrees with, then we are effectively arguing that the government should be dissolved, or at least crippled to the point where it is incapable of doing much of anything.
Therefore, my previous statement stands. In an ideal system of laws, no right should be denied without a pragmatic societal reason. Making homosexual marriage illegal can easily be seen as denying a group of people a right of some kind. As of yet, I have not been presented with anything like a logical reason as to why it is necessary to do so.
What I have heard are the following:
1. Arguments involving morality and/or scripture, which are obviously inadmissible because the goal of our system of laws is not to adhere to scripture or the particular morality of any given ideological group.
2. Hypotheticals involving the proverbial floodgates of other sorts of marriage being declared legal, including, but perhaps not limited to:
-Marriage between humans and nonhumans, which is obviously a flawed comparison, as consent could not be explicitly stated.
-Marriage between adults and children, also illogical as it ignores once again the problem of consent, which legally cannot be given by a minor, for the very practical reason that by and large most children lack the maturity and forethought to fully understand such a decision.
-Marriage between family, discussed just now.
-Marriage between over two people, which is already legal in some respects ("open" marriages) and regardless is far too abusable to make any practical sense from a legal standpoint (Large numbers of people marrying in order to share the legal benefits).
3. Bizarre end-world theories, which make the fallacious assumption that legalizing gay marriage would cause homosexuality to propogate like some sort of virus, somehow ending reproduction as we know it, and thus ending the human race.
4. The argument which you've presented regarding taxes, which I've already covered.
I would call none of these practical reasons to thusly deny rights to homosexuals, and at this point, I am highly doubting that any argument could be made that doesn't rely chiefly on emotional charge.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
All of which I am against and should be eliminated anyway. We pay higher taxes than monarchies did in the mid-1500s. Why did they pay so little? They were held accountable for life. If a monarch leads his people to doom, unhappiness, etc, he will have to live that way too because his position is for life. How can our taxes be so high, wars so long and opposed, etc. because our politician's only care about a 2-4 year window. After that, they are on a pension for the rest of their life and not held accountable.
Ideally, yes, gay marriage should be allowed, but if any only if, licenses aren't distributed by the state for MARRIAGE. If the couple funds it, yes they should have no impedance in their getting married, but as it stands, everyone has a stake in any couple getting married.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
So you're proposing a system where rulers are elected for life, and we don't pay taxes for public education or healthcare, and somehow you think this will better our situation?
Somehow, someone whose position is ASSURED FOR LIFE is held more accountable for their actions than someone who is cycled out every few years? This solution would be PERFECT if so many monarchs of old didn't live in wealth and comfort while the gigantic majority of their people lived in grinding poverty and had to deal with decisions they, and in some cases, a fairly nobility-heavy parliament, made. The only thing monarchs had to worry about was the off-chance that a significant portion of the populace revolted violently, and it takes quite a bit to get enough people that mad, particularly uneducated people.
So by proposing that we dissolve the system of public education - especially if you're not against a capitalist economy - you're proposing a system in which no one who isn't born wealthy has a snowball's chance in hell of bettering their situation, tantamount to the return of the peasant class. The enormous majority of those who become successful, especially in today's world, are educated. If schools were entirely privatized, then the only ones who could get an education would be those who were born into wealthy enough families to afford schools in the first place. And so the uneducated class becomes synonymous with people beyond a certain level of poverty, which steadily becomes a caste of people who are exploited incredibly and can't do a thing about it, while working dead-end jobs that pay next to nothing. Not to mention that they're rife with disease and chronic issues from injuries that haven't healed properly, since we've gotten rid of basic healthcare as well.
Regarding your point about marriage liscences, I'm not overly familiar with nupital law, but I'm fairly certain that at least to some extent, couples pay for their own marriage liscences (Correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure that if too many people won't pay taxes for what they don't support, it wouldn't be a huge leap to say that the government could start making couples fully pay for them (if they don't already) instead of putting tax money into them (if they do). This would probably annoy some people as well if it isn't already the case, but if you're arguing that we should never make a decision because a few people don't support it, then I don't know how you think anything is supposed to work.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
Exactly. The homosexual environment affects the way you think, especially as a little boy. You see your two "daddies" together kissing and you see it as okay.
Most boys raised by two homosexuals have a higher tendency to normally turn out gay due to (again) natural parental influence. Now if you wanna be redundant and go against it because you're just looking to be the opposing side without applying some common sense, go ahead. However, you know my point is somewhat factual as opposed to most of which I've read in the past pages; lewk at mai opinions guyzol
I'd also like to mention, about the taxpayer thing, is that homosexuals are paying taxes too. They have to pay taxes but don't get the benefits? If we don't ban marriage outright, then we have no reason to deny them marriage rights.
Arguing that the majority is anti-gay marriage is also problematic. "What the majority wants, the majority gets" is not a well founded principle. The majority is influenced by RELIGION not LOGIC to be against gay marriage. It's basically arguing that "well until everyone wants gays to marry it won't happen" is flawed because they'll never change without some external influence -- complacency can be one of them, and understanding can be another. You're banning gay marriage; denying people rights, acknowledging that they're paying to fund the same right to others, and acknowledging that they should have the right itself without doing anything to change it. You can end all of the problems in their way by legalizing it. People will come to accept gays as equals through years of complacency, hate will diminish, and the issue will become a non after a decade or two. Leaving things as they are will just allow the already hateful majority's feelings to fester.
Arguing that the majority is anti-gay marriage is also problematic. "What the majority wants, the majority gets" is not a well founded principle. The majority is influenced by RELIGION not LOGIC to be against gay marriage. It's basically arguing that "well until everyone wants gays to marry it won't happen" is flawed because they'll never change without some external influence -- complacency can be one of them, and understanding can be another. You're banning gay marriage; denying people rights, acknowledging that they're paying to fund the same right to others, and acknowledging that they should have the right itself without doing anything to change it. You can end all of the problems in their way by legalizing it. People will come to accept gays as equals through years of complacency, hate will diminish, and the issue will become a non after a decade or two. Leaving things as they are will just allow the already hateful majority's feelings to fester.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Um. What's your point? So people raised by homosexuals view homosexuality as acceptable, and some of them thusly become gay themselves.
Is this a problem?
Duke
it's just duke. nothing to get worried about.
So, now that I got you admitting that marriage is about the sex, homosexuals do need to get married because they cannot procreate. Of course there is sodomy, but even brother/sister marriages can do that.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
To say that SP is "admitting that marriage is about the sex" is a gross misinterpretation (read: twisting) of his words. But let's just assume, for a second, that that is exactly what he meant to say. Explain to me how you go from "marriage is about the sex" to "there's no point in getting married if you can't procreate." It's practically a non-sequitur, and it's already been covered. Would you deny marriage to a heterosexual infertile couple? Should married couples be barred from using birth control? Are DINK couples disobeying any law?
- Status