Oh and probability of something wasn't your argument. You claimed heterosexual intercourse resulted in babies, and that is why they get married. It fails since the vast majority of the time, over 99.9%, opposite sex couples have sex that does not result in babies. Around 15% of opposite sex! married couples don't have children due to their having sex.
Don't be silly.
OP title inaccurate, the states did not overturn their bans, that was a federal court in both cases.
Silly about what? The facts? People in the US ages 20-49 have sex an average of about 11 billion times per year, yet there were only about 3,952,841 births in 2012. So without including teenagers at all, even though some of those births came from them, that puts sex at resulting in a birth at about 0.36%. So not quite 99.9%, but definitely 99.6%. Even if you added another million to account for pregnancies rather than births, it still doesn't result more than 0.46% of the time, putting it at 99.5%. And I didn't even add in old people, who do have sex or teenagers. Plus, this also doesn't take into account something like IVF or sperm donation leading to a pregnancy.
The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]
Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2012 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
FastStats - Births and Natality
Only someone with an agenda would argue in such a selective way. That is what I meant about not being silly. Your arguments only make it clear, that matrimony has widely lost its prime function as a social instrument and public good. So put it, where it belongs and get government out of the matter. Or are you afraid to lose the spousal bonifications that single taxpayers are probably paying you. Or are you one of the ones acting economically irrational and paying more than you would as singles?
Only someone with an agenda would argue in such a selective way. That is what I meant about not being silly. Your arguments only make it clear, that matrimony has widely lost its prime function as a social instrument and public good. So put it, where it belongs and get government out of the matter. Or are you afraid to lose the spousal bonifications that single taxpayers are probably paying you. Or are you one of the ones acting economically irrational and paying more than you would as singles?
You only care about government involvement in marriage because gays are getting it. All the fake ass "pro family and traditional marriage" crap is going away and the true anti gay animus is coming to the surface.
Actually marriage has simply changed function with changes in society, since it has never had the same prime function for every couple who has ever been married. There is a reason for the phrase "merger the old fashion way" referring to when two companies end up merging because the owners' children get married.
I'm not willing to give up my protections nor bankrupt the government or cause people major legal battles and costs just because you and a few others don't want to share.
And the new function is a private good and no a public good. Like most of the school system it has been overtaken by developments and is no longer a legitimate activity for government..
Untrue. But the situation throws up the question for debate and the natural thing to do with a dysfunctional government activity is to get rid of it.
Yet in Mississippi, gay sex is illegal!
ITS A TRAP!
Um, what? You are being sarcastic here right?
Lol, of course
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?