Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[Tartarus Sauce]

Ain't no thang girl.

[Losty]

#4 is a blatant lie. If it were true, it would be the only one that mattered at all to the gay marriage case, but it's a lie.

[Jackie]

No, reproduction is one aspect as to why any species has sex, socializing is another aspect, an asserting dominance as an act of power and control is another.

Heterosexuals also can have sex just for fun, they can also have oral and anal sex. Heterosexuals can aslo have incestuous sex, and even rape.

Sex and sexuality are two different things. And sex when it comes to molesting kids or rape of adults is about power and control, not sexuality.

Heterosexuals do all this thing. Same sex acts not ending up in a pregnancy, does not preclude LGBT from having consensual sex. It also does not preclude gays from having sex with the opposite sex to make a offspring. Climaxing is a function of the body, and can be reactionary by itself. Gays can and do have kids.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Re-reading my response, above, it dawns on me that I need to clarify my First Amendment-related answer about incest.

The right to bodily autonomy, under the general category of Constitutionally-guaranteed privacy rights, in the face of government intrusion absent a "compelling state interest", is what governs much of our relationship between the person and the government in general.

You may not have realized it, Mr. Author, but the same set of rights which allow two (heterosexual) people who have genetic disease recessive traits (and thus would likely produce children with those heritable diseases) to marry freely under law, since the government is prohibited from finding out about your genetic suitability prior to granting your license, are the same ones that prevent us from being able to regulate incestuous marriages in the manner it would take to overcome the presumption that such diseases would occur in a familial pairing.

Likewise, it's not the government's business to determine what categories of people (racial characteristics, gender, etc.) are "eligible" to be included in the umbrella of marriage as currently defined in each state, short of ensuring that they are of legal standing (of age) to enter into what amounts to a civil legal contract together. Contrary to the claims of conservatives, the recent SCotUS ruling did not "redefine" marriage; instead, it examined the ability of the government to determine whether the gender of those entering the contract met the level of scrutiny required under the Equal Protection Clause, and found that government did not have the right or the power to restrict the categories on that basis, just as it made the same finding in 1967 for race in the Loving v. Virginia case.

It would be considered a major victory for conservatism, if they truly believed in limiting the power of government to restrict our private lives; only bigotry keeps them from celebrating it as a victory in this manner, since they appear to still want government intrusion in private lives, when it comes to enforcing Biblical concepts onto our behavior in the bedroom. Luckily for those of us who love freedom and individual dignity under law, the conservatives have been steadily losing every battle they fight to maintain this particular form of power, over the last century.