[So the ONLY purpose of marriage is to procreate, its got nothing to do with love and making a lifetime commitment?]
nope. since the beginning of mankind, it was to progress the species, not to allow fags to get tax benefits
52 comments
In that case marriage is a rather poor mechanism to get the job done. If you were not married and not commited to any one person, you could procreate with a whole lot of people. If the goal is procreation then, the way I see it, marriage only stands in the way.
You didn't really think of that one before you started yapping, did you, imbecile?
Actually, in many cultures, particularly Christian ones, it involved the man OWNING the woman. But I guess that's OK to people like him.
So, anyone who is married beyond childbearing years is sinning?
Let's hope that your belief in that stays strong. I doubt that you'll find a woman willing to "procreate" with you. On the other hand, the generosity of women never ceases to amaze me.
So then if they promise to pay to medically implant their sperm into a donor in order to procreate you are, by your own logic, fine with gay marriage? Or will you just come up with another excuse to justify your bigotry?
marriage was originally a means to obtain alliances, expand your lands without fighting for it, and basically secure business deals. it rarely had to do with love. and also--people who are not married still procreate. there's nothing special about marriage.
Do you honestly think it's all about tax benefits, Joe? Can your pea brain really not comprehend that two people of the same sex can actually love each other? Because that's what it's about. Take away the tax benefits and guess what? Gay people will still want to have the right to get married.
Oh yes, and getting married as a teenager and pumping out sixteen kids does not progress the species. It just clutters up the planet. If you really want to "progress the species" why not do something that actually benefits the human race?
(I'm not against having kids, you understand. I just don't see doing what any mammal can do as progress.)
In that case, what´s the problem with in-vitro fertility plans or surrogate mothers?, why the handmaids of the Bible then?. Moreover, in that case you´re singling out the barren people and those who marry over 55. And by the way, it took ages since the taxes appeared, so your argument makes no logic.
Well, if the gays aren't doing it for love, and they can procreate using the technology we have developed in this day and age, then wouldn't that qualify them for marriage?
Gotta love those begining of mankind tax benefits.
"And in other news, Archaeologists today unearthed a clay tablet upon which was written, in Babylonic Cuneiform, a blank Federal Form 1040."
Ah, yes, because it's MARRIAGE that makes babies. And nobody ever had children before marriage was invented. Nope. /eyeroll
Does this mean sterile hetero couples should be banned from marrying, too?
Or that they should just remove all tax benefits from marriage?
Because I guarantee gay couples will still want to get married, even without benefits. It's called love, you idiot. Some people are actually capable of it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.