1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any ...quire' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.
Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!
Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;
First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.
Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.
See how simple that is?
The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.
I can see why you want to change the subject. Character would admit you failed on the points being discussed. If people used you as an example of gay behavior, they would think that homosexuality has negative character side effects...<quoted text>
My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married". You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".
Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to produce offspring.
And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.
Please go back to your 'farmer' analogy;
A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.
And sillier still?
VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.
Here are the the simple facts;
Our government and all other cultures have never bothered to distinguish between the small number of childless married people and those that do have children. Never been a problem. Still isn't.
That is a far cry from adding a duplicated half of marriage couple who are mutually desolate of procreation.
Additionally, your first sentence is a lie. Homosexuals clearly want to be equated with marriage and parenting in a futile effort to look normal.