Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
No, because they still have the ability to reproduce.
|
Aaggghhh!!! I keep getting dragged in
Um, even the sterile one, the ones past menopause, the ones with vasectomies and hysterectomies, and so forth? It's been argued before, I can pretty much promise that you can't find a straightforward manner in which to defend reproduction and syncronicity with the broad band of heterosexual marriages, but I've never been a man to try and stop someone from trying.
Quote:
|
Anywho, why don't we make a compromise? Let's legalize gay marriage but grant them only the non-child producing benefits. Seem fair?
|
And what would those be? If you're going where I think you're going, I think that could set a precedent that heterosexual couples who adopt lose whichever rights you associated with child production too. Because they didn't actually produce any children, and such. This would be a rhetorical position, as those rights would likely be given back in a legal case after the homosexual right to marriage was recognized / granted. Of course, I personally suspect this entire exchange is almost a rhetorical argument at this point. It's pretty much going to happen - its just a matter of time.