So your claim is it takes two men or three woman and a man or other than one man and one woman to produce a child? It is the sperm and egg that engage to be married. Not the vessel. Gays merely penetrate.
Rev9
I'm saying one man can create 10 kids with 10 wives every 9 months or so, while one woman and 10 men can only produce one kid every 9 moths or so (and twins count for both scenarios, so I ignore them). If this was about procreation, you'd be a polygamist, not a monogamist.
Marriage was not historically about procreation, and logically it still isn't (hence why it's monogamous). Historically it was a property contract where women were property being transfered from father to husband (because women had no rights at the time, or at least had paternal states aggressing against those rights, to be more exact). Historical marriage was almost always polygamous because it was more about reproduction, since so many women and kids (nearly 50%) died in child birth (and kids died a ton before adulthood on top of that, if they survived birth). To play the odds you had to have more than one wife, logically.
Modern monogamous marriage is only monogamous because A) science has made birthing safer for kids and women, and B) because child mortality rates are so much lower now. This makes it possible to have offspring survive to reproduction themselves without having so many kids with so many different mates. Modern marriage is therefore not about procreation or property. So what is it about?
Simply a monogamous contract agreement between a two willing adult parties.
What should it be about?
A willing contract between any number of willing adult parties.
I'm anti-marriage personally, but I think monogamy, polygamy, bi-sexual marriage, and gay marriage should all exist provided you can find a religious figure to marry you and all participants are willing adults. The state should have no say in this religious matter. If you worship a toaster and your preacher will marry you, fine.
You should even be able to marry household appliances.
Why not animals?
Because the animal connot logically give consent, hence it's animal abuse IF you consumate. If you just marry the animal in a religious deal, not actual consumation, then that's fine (Hindus do it in India).
See, I'm not a tyrant, so I don't wish to limit willing agreements between willing adults...I respect the right of contract. All else is a BS made-up, man-made, faux ethical theory some asshole taught you and you bought into without critical thought. I prefer logic, and ethics that emerge from that logic.
Can you show (no you can't) that humans were on the brink of extinction as a species before your "one woman, one man" myth of marriage became the social norm?
Nope.
So stop it.
Gays aren't the norm, nor are they increased by recognizing their contracts (like marriage). How the hell is it relevant they can't reproduce, when many gays end up having kids with someone before going all the way gay? How about when they use the market and science to create kids in the lab? How about the fact gay isn't a disease that spreads, so you don't have to worry about it threatening the human species? How about you just admit you're anti-gay for no logical reason?
You fail so hard everytime you post in protest of what I post. You've been doing it since you asserted "archons" (Ancient Greek city-state rulers) were lizard people who ate babies. Stop failing = stop posting to combat me.
Just admit you're a homophobe and move on.
So when an openly gay person says he's against gay marriage you just pretend that doesn't exist. You're dishonest. Dishonesty is immoral.
