Bingo... We have dogs (and cats, and ferrets) does that count?
David Churvis wrote: > Or couples (and there are a lot of them) who just don't want children? > > David Churvis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:52 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: the list > > So, what about infertile couples, or people who marry after the age of 50? > > (so far, the argument does not hold much water) > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Michael Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Well after reading this post I just had to say something. And I'm sure >> > that > >> my comments are going to lead to gaining a few enemies. >> >> Let me preface my comments by saying I have absolutely no problem with two >> consenting adults choosing to do whatever they like. I have about a half >> dozen gay friends. One couple, Brian and Peter, have been together for >> > close > >> to 20 years and I would consider them one of the closest friends of my >> > wife > >> and I. I am not religious, and don't believe in intelligent design either. >> That being said... >> >> If we draw our conclusions of what's "right" and what's "wrong" from >> biology... the only proper "union" is between a male and a female of the >> same species. Genetically there's a fail safe in place to ensure that >> > what's > >> not biologically "normal" won't produce offspring. And in the instance of >> > a > >> man and a woman from identical parents their offspring are generally >> > doomed. > >> Evolution has made the determination of what's right and wrong. >> Inter-species unions won't produce offspring nor will homosexual unions as >> it's not part of the biological blueprint. >> >> Keeping that in mind, let's look at the root of marriage. Marriages (in >> > the > >> traditional sense) get certain tax breaks and legal advantages because the >> assumption is that people get married, have children and help grow the >> populace and therefore strengthen the country. Remember that when marriage >> laws were originally created it was assumed that 1) all married people >> strive to have children and 2) people don't have children out of wedlock. >> >> So since there is zero chance of a gay marriage producing more Americans, >> why extend tax breaks and advantages to such a union? >> >> I think many people mix up tolerance and acceptance for normality. >> Biologically same sex couples aren't the rule, they're the exception. >> Tolerance and acceptance should be exercised to ensure they aren't >> persecuted. But from a biological stand point same sex couples have the >> > same > >> genealogical success rate as a zebra and an elephant. And if we say that >> > all > >> relationships are "normal" and deserve the same marital rights then why >> shouldn't brothers and sisters be allowed to marry as well? >> >> ok, now everyone can attack me and call me a pinhead. Just know that I >> honestly don't judge homosexuals or think they should be persecuted. >> > However > >> I don't think gay couples should be entitled to the same economic status >> > as > >> straight couples. >> >> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280740 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
