| reggin_bolas said:
Same tired argument. It's not about who can actually reproduce. It has to do about who can actually CONCEPTUALLY reproduce. A biological man and woman can at least conceptually reproduce. A man and a man can never. |
Why does it matter that they could conceptually reproduce when in actuality an infertile couple cannot (at least disregarding avenues that gay couples could also take)? If it is only about what is conceptual, why not just make your ammendment say marriage is between two humans? I mean, two humans can conceptually reproduce. It's not about who can actually reproduce, right? So it shouldn't matter that the couple in question might be two women. Just like it apparently doesn't matter that a couple might be infertile.
Then of course, there is the reality that plenty of kids are being raised by gay couples. So the state should have the same motivation for the protection of their families and the future generation.
