Is it time America writes a new Constitution?

[generic-user-1]

bouzane said:

reggin_bolas said:

A man and woman can always conceptually reproduce ipso facto. Whether an individual couple is fertile or not is irrelevant to the analysis as a whole. 

We do not live in a religious theocracy or a fascist autocracy so one group does not get to oppose their views upon everybody else. There are many cultures and religions that traditionally allowed same-sex marriages and the number is growing by the day. People like yourself should have no right to deny other cultures (like our own Native peoples) and other religious organizations what they can and cannot do. They do not care about your need for a couple to be able to "CONCEPTUALLY reproduce" because it is an asinine criteria. If being "natural" is so important to you maybe you should reconsider participating in an extremely unnatural civilization.

well there is a point somewhere in his "argument".  reproducing IS important for the state, and giving extra benefits to people who reproduce is totaly fine. but you cant just say man and woman are allowed the rest isnt.the fertility of the couple is important too! it would be unfair to give extra benefits to a couple that cant reproduce just because they are man and woman