There's no need to yell, GtS. I understand you have a different point of view, one about which you feel very assertive.

The "conceive and reproduce" aspect of marriage is often touted as the primary rationale behind formalizing civil coupling at all. But there are plenty of childless couples, whose marriages should not be annulled because they didn't obey the Pope and the Old Testament about multiplying. In this day and age of overpopulation, the ability to reproduce is hardly a major recommendation for honoring choices of partner.

The fact is the entire movement against gay marriage is an invented issue, blown up out of all proportion in order to give the right wing an issue to boil up about. The core function of the marriage proposition is the choice of two individuals, an exercised freedom that is inherent in their nature as human beings, regardless of their color, creed, choice of sexual practice, or shape of plumbing. Any two humans deserve the complete untrammeled right to make such a decision with their lives and to have it acknowledged socially as a legal civil state.

Or else, none do, and all legal propositions predicated on married versus unmarried states should be struck from the books forthwith. But this "separate and different" shtick does not work in civil codes of law.


A



A