In response to:

US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

Mike107 Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 12:38 PM
When it can be proven that a human can be homosexual and when it can be proven that two men or two women can consummate a marriage and when it is the norm rather than an exception (impossible for ss) to produce a child then and only then will I agree to provide benefits under the government licence of marriage. There is no such thing as a homosexual human. There are people that engage in a behavior of same sex activity just like a person is a sky diver be they choose to go sky diving. Marriage requires consummation because it is the combining of the two halves of the human species. The governments(we the people) only reason for licensing marriage is to regulate and promote the growing of future citizens. As for equality the laws apply to all individuals absolutely equal. I am just as restricted as to the rules of marriage as any other person. I can no more marry with in my gender or family just like everyone else. The law is NOT about who I love but who I marry. If you want me to agree with you then follow logic and rational reasoning because I will vote against everything that is not.
AbigailAdams4sure Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 3:19 PM
The point is simply that marriage is traditionally defined as the ability to create a family.

What this does not mean: That a widower and a widow, past child-bearing years, cannot marry. They can! Their relationship bestows the blessings of grandparenthood, and all of the role modeling necessary for future generations. Or nieces and nephews, if they have no children.

A wounded soldier can marry his fiance and a barren woman can marry.

These are just arguments promulgated to justify same-sex marriage.

In ancient Rome, homosexuality was practiced but NO ONE tried to define it as marriage. Because it wasn't. It had nothing to do with creating a building block for society or becoming the bedrock of civilization. It was simply a hedonistic practice and all about self-gratification.

Still is.
David3036 Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 7:55 PM
Your point that marriage is traditionally defined as the ability to create a family is just an argument promulgated to justify OPPOSING same-sex marriage.

It ignores the fact that these gay couples who want to marry are ALREADY couples -- some for many years together while they law considered them to be single adults. You don't see the injustice in that?
AbigailAdams4sure Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 8:16 PM
When these same-sex couples are allowed to marry in countries allowing them that right, marriage does not increase. Marriage falls off the chart for both homosexual and heterosexual unions.

There is no attempt here to enshrine marriage, just to make it more dilute, so that it becomes even more meaningless for more and more people.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 2:08 PM
So if a Soldier is wounded in a war and paralyzed and unable to consummate a marriage he can not come and marry his fiancee? If an 80 year old man, even with help of drugs, for health reasons can not have sex he can't marry a woman?

When did we ever ask if a couple planned to have sexual intercourse in order for them to get married. How long do they have to do it before the government inspector goes over and tells them they can not marry?

Your argument and post is tripe. The ability of ANY couple to consummate a marriage or have children is not a LEGAL requirement in ANY state nor would such a most personal intrusion on private decisions be tolerated
David3036 Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 2:02 PM
Fertility has never been a requirement for opposite-sex couples to marry. Women who are past menopause are not banned from marrying because they can't produce children. Why should that be a barrier to same-sex marriage? And are you aware that same-sex couples DO have children? Elton John has children. Ricky Martin has children. They're gay, not sterile.

You are trying to assign some sort of spiritual status to the word "marriage," when in fact its meaning in the civil sense is just a legal bond that makes two unrelated people become next of kin. It has no spiritual or religious significance. If that WERE the crux of the argument there would be no need for debate, because gay couples have been united in church ceremonies for decades, with no legal recognition whatsoever -- even in many mainstream churches. If your church has refused to do so, no problem -- gay marriage laws will not change that.

What would be the point of marrying within your family if you are already related? That makes absolutely no sense and is just one more illogical argument dredged up to oppose gay marriage.

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — A federal judge struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban Tuesday, but headed off any rush to the altar by setting aside his order while state and local officials complete an appeal.

It was the second time in a month that a federal judge has set aside a deeply conservative state's limits on same-sex marriage, after Utah's ban was reversed in December.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern described Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

The decision drew criticism from the governor, attorney general...