Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

Tim, my argument is not nullified at all. Gay marriage isn't about avoiding to have children. They are just less likely to do so. That is why homosexuality was frowned on by religious heads in the early days.
Marriage can also exist without that religious mumbo-jumbo, which caused some fairly violent opposition from both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists when it became popularized. Even if no church would marry gay people, they should still be able to get married and have a family under the civil law. Otherwise they're not human by law.

What I think and is supported by your statment below:

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Marriage can also exist without that religious mumbo-jumbo, which caused some fairly violent opposition from both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists when it became popularized. Even if no church would marry gay people, they should still be able to get married and have a family under the civil law. Otherwise they're not human by law.

is that it is really about semantics, call a rose by any other name and it is just a weed, its the way the government works. If they didn't call it marriage no one would care and it would be easily allowed.