You were trying to imply that children are not an integral part of marriage. In that foolish attempt, your deceitful exaggeration was exposed.
It is again.
You make my case;
By your own stats, as child bearing declines, so does marriage. A clear and undeniable correlation that as you put it, even a fool should be able to see...
Then you make the silly assertion that child bearing 'should be included on the marriage license'. Ignoring the fact that some states still require blood tests because to the potential, why would they? If children need government permission, why not sex? What about eating together? Using the same bathroom??? Your gay twirl is sooooo silly...
Just a note, divorces do rise after children are adults. Moreover, the argument for no-fault divorce was that 'staying together for the children' was not a good reason. What happened? Divorce skyrocketed and social health of children plummeted. You should know this as a 'social worker'...
The government has to have a prevailing reason to determine who can marry. There is one for the fundamental building block of society; families. There is none for discriminatory support of some friendships between a arbitrary number of people.
I never denied any of what you 'clearly stated'. I pointed out how YOUR comparison made MY point. Now you try to divert from that silly mistake.<quoted text>
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.
If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.
Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.
These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.
If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.
Is that a step you're willing to take?
Nor did I say procreation is the 'only' reason for marriage. I said it is the fundamental purpose of marriage. At it's most basic essence, a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
You didn't use my analogy to draw your 'conclusion', in fact, you are afraid to face it. Moreover, you ignore this fact; Marriage has included childless couples because they are an rare exception. Children are a part of marriage 96% of the time historically. Gay couples can NEVER procreate as a couple.
Here is the honest bottom line. If you pretend gay couples are married, you have dumbed down marriage to a friendship for two people. That is discriminatory to both number of participants and types of friendships.
Is that a step YOU are willing to take?