You were trying to imply that children are not an integral part of marriage. In that foolish attempt, your deceitful exaggeration was exposed.<quoted text>
I didn't mean to imply that marriage is devoid of offspring.
However, given that many marriages do not involve procreation, offspring is not the center of all marriages. The number of childless adult women has been on the increase since the 1970s.(According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976.)
Even marriage is on the decline. In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today that figure has fallen to 51%.
It's so simple that even a fool like you should be able to understand that.
As you very well know, procreation is so legally detached from marriage that it isn't even listed on a marriage certificate.
And if marriage were truly about procreation, then why hasn’t the “cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior” phenomenon that you keep regurgitating led to across the board divorces once children have been raised or once couples are beyond the age (or medical ability) to procreate?
Look, as has been REPEATEDLY been pointed out to you, people get married for a variety of reasons. Child rearing is just one reason. Other reasons include love, money, lust, family pressure, personal pressure, etc. And that’s just in our culture. In other cultures people get married as a part of arrangements to wed entire families or tribes.
In this country we’re free to marry for whatever reason we wish. The government may say WHO we can marry, but it cannot dictate WHY we marry.
And if same-gender couples wish to marry, there is no legitimate legal reason to keep us from doing so.
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.