Yes, to procreate, it takes a man and a woman. Raising children properly takes a man and a woman.
Saving it is about love is correct. Love between a man and a woman.
My wife jokes and says that if she ever gets married again, she wants to marry our dog Emmy, a LhasaApso Shih Tzu. We both love our dog. Works for me!
Most Americans and most people in the world believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Just because the gay rights movement has gained support lately, does not mean that abnormal sex between a man and man, and woman and woman is OK. It is not; it is sick.
The body parts meant for the removal of waste from your body are not designed to be used for sex; and, you can't produce babies that way; so homosexuals are very abnormal, and so are heterosexuals that engage in that type of perverse sexual activity.
Homosexuals as a group transmit more HIV and STDs; and the fact that both lesbians and homosexuals have a higher rate of Drug and Alcohol abuse, proves that they know their activities are abormal.
To procreate, it takes a man and woman, yes. But to raise a child, it takes anyone who cares. A single mother can raise three children. A single father can watch his son grow. Just because there isn't a "mother figure" or a "father figure" doesn't mean that the child is at a disadvantage. Plus, there are people who get married who would never have children, either because they don't want them or they are sterile.
Marriage is about love. To say that it has to be between a man and a woman without any support means nothing. Just because you say it over and over and louder and louder doesn't make it any more correct.
People who can't "procreate" can also adopt. I'm sure there are still orphans in this world. How about making sure the babies that are already born grow up instead of just mass-producing children? What an idea.
And some people have children without getting married. Obviously, marriage and sex are separate activities. Getting married and giving birth are not mutually inclusive.
According to many religions one of the biggest reasons for marriage is to procreate. This does not mean that the definition of what marriage should be is just to procreate. We are a species that creates strong emotional ties to others. Couples who decide not to have children, may not be able to physically conceive them, and gay and lesbian couples are similar to those that have children. Marriage should be between two people who love each other with a disregard to ability to have children and sexual orientation.
Marriage should be defined by two people falling in love and wanting to share their lives together. Married couples also enjoy certain benefits like the ability to inherit as a married couple, the right to insure your partner with either health or life insurance and of course the right to be a married couple in a stable relationship. Marriage is more a way to become a family of two, a way to tell the world, "This is who I want to be with for the rest of my life."
Those making this argument are, not surprisingly, not out protesting the ability of those over 55 to get married. Nor are they complaining about the marriages of the infertile or the childless by choice. Therefore it is obvious that the only non-procreative couples they are concerned about are the homosexual ones, making their hypocrisy in this matter obvious.
To my dear friend on the left, no, most Americans don't believe the definition is between a man and a woman. The fun thing about facts is they're there whether you believe them or not. Anyway. No, if that was the case we'd have to ban elderly people looking to get remarried too. They're not going to create more children, so the hell with them, right? This is stupid.