Thank God for my smokin' hot wife!

We know. You won't shut the fuck up about yours.

Heterosexual marriages should be praised.

Why?

They are most likely to produce children raised in a secure environment and take advantage of educational and social opportunities.

Thus, they are a national asset.

Do you know this because all Christians brag like high school kids about all the sex they're having with their wives?

All Christians can't be as bush league as you are, can they?

So, now we're back to 'marriage = children'?

All loving marriages between two consenting adults should be praised.

Unless the children are born to right-wing, batshit crazy wacko christians like Dayton who brainwash the little tykes and indoctrinate them into their evil ways.

Ideally.

Which ones shouldn't be praised?

And for a twist, try doing it without using the words "God", "Jesus" or "bible."

Betcha can't!

Why?

Oh, was gay marriage legalized throughout the country and gay adoption sanctioned such that we can have comparable statistics, or are you talking out of your ass? Keep in mind that anecdotal evidence is not acceptable.

Homosexual unions.

That was easy...........:frolic:

Why?

Homosexual sex is physically impossible of producing children.

I thought you knew that.

If homosexuals want to "raise" children then they have to procure them in some way from those producing them as a result of heterosexual contact.

Why does marriage equal producing children?

"But my wife is incapable of having children!"

"Then, you're a faggot!".

The world is full of hate, and shitty parents. Why in the world would you refuse to let people recognize their love in the same way that you love your wife? Why would you deny the unadopted children of this world and of this nation the right to grow up in a secure and loving household instead of living in an orphanage?

You run around screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN." Well think about them, think about how many unadopted kids are out there who would give anything to have parents, even if they had two moms or two dads. Think about them, visualize a child in an orphanage or being mistreated in foster care, and think about how much better their life could be if you and everyone else could get over your religious hangups to let them be raised by people who would give them a loving home. Stop listening to the part of the bible where God tells you homosexuality is a sin, and start listening to the part where Jesus tells you to treat others as you'd like to be treated.

So two adults past childbearing age who marry? They don't count? Or they do, as long as they aren't having icky buttsecks?

Yes, Dayton, what is your stance on MILFs who like assplay?

More and more states recognizing marriages like yours Mikee.

Irrelevant.

I would wager that most older couples past childbearing age who marry already have children from previous marriages (as my dad and stepmother did). The marriage still provides a natural focus for the extended family including the young grandchildren.

Too many useless asshats making babies anyway.

I take it you have no idea of the barriers that prevent people from adopting children in the U.S. ?

Well I do.

In addition to the very high costs (about two or three times as much as having your own child) a ridiculously low number of American children are available for adoption each year.

And I know because my wife and I looked into it. Even making it clear that race did not matter.

Most is not all. If your requirement for marriage is that the two individuals be capable of producing children without outside assistance, then any individuals past childbearing age who have no children from previous marriages shouldn't be able to get married.

Your criteria are entirely arbitrary and are arguing from the conclusion that the purpose of marriage is for children, not as a recognition of love or mutual committed friendship between two people.

Actually, marriage was created so that the woman could nag and torment her husband for the rest of his life. The system fell apart during the 20th century with the rise of the divorce rate and further when the courts stopped awarding as much alimony.

How is that relevant? Do gay people not have money? Or are you arguing that because you're straight you should get first dibs?

Exactly!!!

Based on...what? I mean, you've claimed that heterosexual unions are a more secure environment, but where's your unbiased evidence for it? And if you do have evidence for it, what certainty do you have that it is free from sampling error, as there are only a few places in the US that allow gay marriage in the first place.