Liberal agenda at work!

Tommy: Yea... I agree to a point....marriage...NO. I don't care if people want to live with a donkey...I have no interest in it. But marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. If the junk don't fit, then bond ain't legit!

Patriot, then you are inflicting your values on others! What about just getting government out of the business of marriage anyway?

Tommy: I can agree with that..I don't think the Fed should be involved in at all. As for me inflicting my values.... I am fine with inflicting my values, though I do not consider the natural order of the universe a "value". I consider it to be a privilege!

So, you want to inflict "your" values on people, but what if it was done to you? What if another individual wanted to inflict their "values" on you? Who gets to choose what "values" are correct? I believe a system where individual liberty trumps all, and individuals have the right to do what they wish as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others makes the most sense morally and practically.

On the issue of "order of the universe," I am not really understanding you. Marriage is not an order of the universe... And once again who gets to interpret these things? You must realize if you want to inflict your will on other individuals, you better be ready for people to inflict their will on you.

Tommy: Arguing about my values as it relates to the natural order of things is like telling water to not be wet! You can stomp around the liberal water cooler all day. I will never buy into the rhetoric of values. The fact of the matter is....in life, some things JUST ARE! I am married....to a woman, I am a man. Nobody can convince me that is a value. It is a preordained reality!

Seems like a big order, I find it unlikely Government will "Get of the business of marriage". If Married folks are willing to forgo, filing joint income taxes, creating family partnerships, (to divide wealth from business). Estate Planing to inherit spouses wealth, Exemption of Estate and Gift taxes, creating life estate Trusts, Obtaining priority if a conservator be needed for your spouse. Government benefits like receiving Veterans and Military benefits, Receiving Public assistance benefits, Receiving Medicare, Social Security and Disability benefits. Employments benefits, Obtaining insurance thorough your spouses employer, Taking Family leave to care for your Spouse, Receiving wages-workers compensation - retirement plan benefits from deceased spouse, bereavement leave. Medical Benefits, Visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions. Family Benefits, Being a stepparent or a joint adoption, applying for foster care, equitable division of property in divorce, have spouse, child support, custody or visitation. In addition to 50 other "Business of Marriage, such as spousal immunity, meaning the government can force you to testify against your spouse. So if all these go away, then it's a level playing field, but seems unlikely and unfair that this would be the case.

Bill: You mind your own business. See, I can do that also. I doubt that people will ever get use to wrongs...maybe if we degrade into Roman times of degradation. That may just happen under the current government. As for conservative values...I have said repeatedly that I am more a libertarian....Imo, government should leave us all alone. Not just the LBGT community. Continue with your attack on me...funny how my disagreement gets all vial responses...Guess you folks are not so pure in many areas of your life's.

Go ahead...get married...nobody is stopping you. Let me be the first to congratulate you.

Question. How would the marriage of homosexuals or a domestic registry be forced on you? How would it actually change your day to day life?

Nothing is being forced on you if someone else gets the rights that you already have. The government should't care what the bible says. If you were being forced to do something, then something would be being forced on you. The choice is simple. If you don't want to marry a gay, then don't marry a gay. Problem solved.

Judi: Very well said....you did not attack or disparage. I am in complete agreement with you, as are the silent majority in America...and the world. The problem we face in America today...is education. most people that argue as michael mirra does, are ignorant to American history, we were taught the correct history of America. They are being taught a slanted view of our founding fathers. We are, a Christian based society. As such Christianity is weaved throughout the political system and our laws. If the atheist wish to change are country away from our founders, then they need to change are history....and that is exactly what the current administration is trying to do.

What is being forced? If the government says it's ok for 2 gay people to marry, what is being forced on you? And let's not even get into who it is/was who wrote the bible….

Patriot,
Do you mean the fact that the lies that were taught from 1940s through the 1980's where it has been prooven the government made up stories of our founding fathers to promote pro-American anti-Communism values was the correct American History? The fact that in the last 20 years they are pulling back and actually reporting on what our founding fathers were really like is a slanted view?
Surprise the government lied to us about founding fathers for 40 years to makes us feel good and fight Communism. It has been documented and exposed.
John Adams is the closest we come to a true Chritian of our founding fathers. Christopher Columbus also wasn't the first to discover the Americas. Washington didn't cut down the Cherry Tree, this was completely fabricated. We were founded as a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. The terms "lord", "god" extra were no in the Constitutions or Declaration of Independence except in the proper stating of the date. "God" wasn't on money until the Civil War, and the Pledge didn't include "God" until 1948 to help nationalism against Communism (Pledge originally written in 1892). Only 17% of the American Population went to Church in the 1770's. The percentage has gown over what some researchers call evangelical awakenings in 1850 33% of Americans belonged to a Church, 1890 45%, and in 1906 where Christianity took the majority of the citizenship at 51%.

Where does it say in your bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. Quote the verse for us please. Of course, the bible is not the document we are governed by, it's the constitution silly. If civil rights hadn't been made into law do you think the narrow minded bigots of the south would have changed their racist ways. How does giving equal rights that you enjoy to others that don't enjoy those same rights not the fair and right thing to do?

Michael D: Wrong Michael...you are off the mark on American history as a lot of folks are....I will school you on the founding farther one at a time if you would like...say the word

Don't need to be, have done plenty of research on the subject. Had a great U.S. History Professor in College as well, that got me into the research. Showed where the lies started and you can see in the actual texts of the history books release pre 1940 and post 1980s where things were removed and put back in. A lot of lies were supplied by the government, or overlooked because the facts didn't fit the "truth". I'm not saying they were deistist like a lot of people say, but they were not the Church Going Hard Core Christians either. Washington wasn't communed but was quite religious and John Adams was known as a "Church going Animal". Where as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would not be as religious. They attended services after becoming President, which was a sign of support to the people. They believed in a republic that was devote of the Religious overtones that many left England over. They wanted a nation without religious persecution. They created a nation free of religion and government being as one. "A Wall of Seperation" in Jefferson's words.

Judi,
I'm not stating if it is right or wrong. You made the statement:
"What people do in this world is not for me to judge but that being said I don't want things forced on me by the government."
What is changing in your life that this is being for on "you". The government isn't a religious monitor, the church is. We do not want the Church to be a religious monitor, that is what the Church of England was. Ever read the King James Bible, written by the Church of England? Written because the King wanted a divorce, and the Catholic Church didn't want to perform it.
If you believe homosexual marriage is wrong, I have no issue with your belief. It is the issue you are saying that these things would be forced on your personally and it would have some real impact on your life. And if we are not to judge what people do in their lives as you state it is not for you to judge, then why are we telling the people of the government to do so?

sorry, line said this :
"We do not want the Church to be a religious monitor, that is what the Church of England was."
Should be:
We do not want the Government to be a religious monitor, that is what the Church of England was.

Tommy, you're wasting your time attempting to have a rational and reasoned discussion with Patriot about any subject. Remember what the immortal bard said, "he that would argue with a fool, be the greater fool."

Tommy: Human rights are not granted to us by a government. You appear to be under the impression that the GOVERNMENT gives us our rights...perhaps this should be familiar to you as a person with political aspirations. ...

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Tommy....are you now going to try and convince me George Washington was a deist? You need to get on the right side of history Tommy, we a have enough traitors in government, we don't need more!

No Patriot! You seem to think people get their rights from the government. I am talking about human rights, natural rights. You are saying the government decides who gets married! The "natural order" would allow a man to marry a lamp, because in the natural order people can make rational or irrational decisions without interference from other individuals as long as they respect the rights of other individuals. And to say you are Libertarian is the really funny part. The so called Libertarians that dropped the R and picked up the L after Glenn Beck began claiming it completely forgot about the socially moderate part of Libertarianism. Look at the great Libertarians: Rothbard, Mises, Paul. Not one of those people are opposed to same sex marriage, but instead fight for liberty based on the individual instead of the collective. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy where individual rights rule, and individuals are not put into groups to determine their liberty. My friend, you are the collectivist here, you are the one who believes government should be interfering in individuals lives, and you are the one inflicting your will (no matter how you like to doll it up) on others. And coming from a young person, believe me, this argument will be over by the time the next generation cycles out. We don't care what people do as long as they respect my rights to do what i wish without inflicting force on me.
And David, I understand, but it is too fun to have a debate :)

And patriot would you mind defining the non-agression axiom and how it applies here. Oh and can you name this quote?
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him"

Patriot, it does not matter about the religion of our founding fathers, although Jefferson and Franklin were indeed deists. What matters is what they thought about the state using religion as a basis for legislation. It is clear in most of our founding fathers writings, they believed that there should be a "wall separating church and state." And as I cited previously, and earlier, i will stire the Treaty of Tripoli again, ratified by the US Senate and signed by John Adams.:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
"

Ellen: We are a nation of laws!

Marissa....sounds like you are pro Anarchy to me lol.... Since when are words different? Have different meanings?..... Try to tell a judge that his laws that he is presiding over have different meanings and therefore you did not break them! R-U NUTZ?

Nobody denies gays humanity. They are NOT discriminated in this country. But marriage is about PROcreation, not REcreation.

Marissa Byrum, AP, DOM, Dipl. Ac. makes too much sense for the people here to comprehend. Marissa, these people are idiots. Your words are pearls before swine. All common sense is lost to their mental functioning capabilities. Added is the situation that they don't want to comprehend what you are saying.
The fact that they use their bible as cherry picking of values in the way that they stretch whatever it says to fit whatever their prejudices want to rationalize makes it beyond the realm of possibility that they will choose to comprehend what you say. Give it up. Trying to make them see logic is pointless. People in America will be able to join in marriage, whatever sex they are, just like these same people tried to block people of different race from marriage. Their mindset is vanishing in America. No matter what anyone says here. These people will be gone with the wind, like the flat earthers that came before them.

This crazy Patriot say Marissa is pro Anarchy. That's the mantality we are dealing with. People that speak common sense are considered pro anarchy & the bible is quoted. God help us. LOl.

Amen

Alexander Hamilton loved centralized government and was the father of the national bank! I don't think I have heard any Libertarian, or for that matter liberty leaning Republican, quote Hamilton in a positive way. Libertarianism is born off of the anti-federalist, Jeffersonian movement. Obviously the greatest champion was Jefferson himself, but even more Libertarian (today's definition) was George Mason.

I quote Alexander as a Christian founder, I care not his political leaning as you seem to have made that a sole focus. The leaning of the left for him in his time would be considered a moderate Republican today. Don't create a battle from a snap shot of time to try and dilute the issue. This issue will always come back to one real question. Were the Founding Fathers believers, or not! As I said before Tom, we got a enough hacks for politicians, we are all full up, get your head straight man

It matters not if they were believers, Patriot! I think it is great for people to believe in something, but you are not realizing the church and state are separate! And separate for a reason. The beliefs of our founding fathers has nothing to do with laws we inflict today.

"It matters not if they were believers, Patriot! I think it is great for people to believe in something, but you are not realizing the church and state are separate! And separate for a reason. The beliefs of our founding fathers has nothing to do with laws we inflict today." ~Tommy Frain

This is why our country is in cardiac arrest. This man aspires to public service, yet does not know the countries true history!

michael mirra: whatever....quoting comedians and "who gives a crap about the founding fathers", you are a victim of your ignorance...what a shame.

patriot, the founding fathers were a bunch of rich white men that didn't want to pay their taxes. they rose up in insurrection against the established order & legal authorities. they did create a good blueprint for a good & fair society, however. That is why we fight, to this day, hundreds of years later, to insure that all Americans have freedom & equal rights. The founding fathers were not prophets of God & the constitution is only words that people read & people interpret to maintain the semblance of a fair country. I the interest of maintaining the fair society that they left us, we fight against people like you, tooth & nail, and don't let you deprive Americans of the rights that freedom grants us ALL.

Nonsense David! feel free to copy link that leads to your comment! Thank you

Yes Jimmy...be patient, they will get to you.

Victor,
Darwin believed in God and also of species evolution. So what is your agrument here? Are you saying as a species we didn't evolve from where we were a few thousand years ago? That other species also do not evolve? So from Darwin's papers that we were created by God and as a species have evolved, is incorrect according to you? So what is your point, other than the obvious "Obama hope vs God hope" comment.

By the way Victor, this was a great post you put together a wile back...

Victor Orloff

10:05 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Obama is fundamentally transforming America as he promised. He does it exactly as Vladimir Lenin taught to do:
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation”
“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever”
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency”
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses”.
- Vladimir Lenin quotes (Russian Founder of the Russian Communist Party, leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917, 1870-1924).

Sounds familiar?

why differentiate between God's hope & Obama's hope. I think God's hope for man is Obama's hope. What you mean, I think, as God's hope is Right wing Christian exclusionist hope. That is different from Obama's hope, as it is also different from God's hope. God doesn't hope for divisions & exclusions. God prefers kind atheists to viciously bigoted Christians. The Christian right thinks God belongs only to them. God is an immortal spirit that belongs to everyone. God is not a right wing Christian sympathizer

Yes, TJ was a great man!

Do you see the individual liberty aspect? That equal rights, and equal protection for individuals, not groups, is what drove the founding of this nation?

And beyond that even, the argument is not about my condoning of homosexuality or in a broader sense any behavior. It is not about my personal feelings about an issue, it is about the natural liberty individuals have to do what they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. We need statesmen who support liberty over tyranny.

Ignorance derived from a progressive agenda, is ignorance by choice.

What are we ignorant of? Are we ignorant of the fact that all men (& women) are endowed with life, liberty & the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Are we ignorant that at one time Americans were blocked from marriage because of race difference & that America moved past that? Are we ignorant that in America all people have the same rights (SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS) and that if we see someone being restricted in the exercise of those rights, it is our duty as Americans to make sure that restriction is no more? Are we ignorant of the fact that Christ never spoke of Homosexuality, but you people ferrit out passages from the old testiment that also said it was OK to have slaves?Are we ignorant of the fact that if someone doesn't want to marry a gay, they are free to not marry a gay? I think we ARE ignorant to the bigoted ideas you have about life cloacked in your religious bull crap. We are not ignorant to how you want to push your values in eveyones face & say WE want to cramp YOUR freedoms.

also, patriot, & I call you a patriot only because you use that as your label, but you are far from a patriot. It isn't ignorance derived from a progressive agenda. It is common sense derived from having a brain.

I think Darwin may explain homosexuality as a way to stop population growth through evolution.

Victor,
Here you go again:: Creating agrument by saying people said things they didn't say. Please show me the quote where I said:
"So you say that Darwin will call same-sex unions that can NOT reproduce themselves an EVOLUTION?"

Please show me this quote. Show me and everyone on this board with timestamp where i made the statement above. While you are at it, show me where I said anything agruing against creationism.

This is your agrument style, make up agruments, and lie about what people said. I believe my quote was:

"Michael D.
1:21 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013

Victor,
Darwin believed in God and also of species evolution. So what is your agrument here? Are you saying as a species we didn't evolve from where we were a few thousand years ago? That other species also do not evolve? So from Darwin's papers that we were created by God and as a species have evolved, is incorrect according to you? So what is your point, other than the obvious "Obama hope vs God hope" comment."

So here I mention creationism as the origin and evolution as the continuation of the speicies. So where did I say that evolution vs. creation. Again making up statements to fit an agrument you want. This is what you do when you don't have an answer to the question that was presented to you.

Wow Tommy, you make it sound like evolution had a designer, my gosh, it knew how the species desire to reproduce would lead to ultimate demise. So it factored in birth control....amazing!

Tommy, getting a little tweek'ed? lol....I am all for liberty. But I do think, as our Founding Father knew, that our government in the hands of God fearing men would be a better defender of liberty, then an atheist. Again, look through the nations of the world and find one....just one that has held up as the Exceptional United States Of America has...you will find out that they do not with stand the test of time.

As for the Republican party, it is broke....the men that will save it...will be men that participated in the filibuster with Paul include, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

Victor...another great post!

So Arranged marriages were about Procreation? Or were they about other factors?

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

If we are talking about America....then sorry. We must talk about Christianity. Now, if you wish to move away from the founding of the country and the true history. Then we need to talk about what we will become. And need to vote on our new law of the land....until that happens...Bible it is!

Bitter much?

Let me share with you, Carole, how I understand the Marriage Sacrament. This is when a male-female pair gives a birth to a new life. Isn't it a miracle? A little bit different than to buy or take a born child?
If you haven't noticed yet, I personally say that most "straight" people are NOT against gays living together and sharing their wealth. That's about defining this a marriage. It looks like it is more important for gays to make us call them a married couple than have the right to share their wealth during and after their life. Tax issue? Fine, I don't see any problem for them to pay the same taxes as straight married couples.

Victor,
Congradulations on proper quoting. Because you still haven't shown accountability for your misrepresentation or downright lying from earlier. But you are brushing that under the rug.. by the way, it destroys your creditiblity.
Second, are you saying Arranged Marriages don't happen, and didn't happen even here in the United States of America? Do you think they were about Procreation, which is what you state marriage is about?
As you said:
"Marriage is for ProCreation, not ReCreation."

By the way, you don't have to married to procreate... it is biologically possible to do so without being legally married.

Yes, you don't have to be married to get pregnant - every physically capable person can do it, but you have to be parents for the rest of the life of yours taking responsibility for the human being you created.

Victor,
So marriage isn't procreation. Now I do agree it isn't about recreation either. It is something more, but that is determined by the two people involved. No church, government etc.. defines an individual marriage. As been proven by history.

So are you saying that straight people who choose not to have children aren't really married? I think you confused your Sacrements. But never the less, I no longer practice the faith. However I take greater umbrage to straight people who've been divorced several times than I do to any gay couple who wishes to be married.
I wouldn't be so opposed to the whole civil union/marrige thing if it applied to any one who is divorced and remarried.
As far as "Holy matrimony" that is something sanctioned by a church/ temple/mosque. I don't understand why so many people take offense to using the word marrige as opposed to civil union. Should all couples straight or gay who were not married in a church/temple/mosque be considered a civil union and not a marriage?

"So are you saying that straight people who choose not to have children aren't really married? I think you confused your Sacrements. But never the less, I no longer practice the faith. However I take greater umbrage to straight people who've been divorced several times than I do to any gay couple who wishes to be married.
I wouldn't be so opposed to the whole civil union/marrige thing if it applied to any one who is divorced and remarried".

Carole, that's your decision whether to believe, practice the faith or not. The God gave you this right to choose. People divorcing each other break the God's law and the promise they gave each other at the wedding. And that's their choice, too. Again, please don't gay union a marriage and everything will be more simple.

As far as "Holy matrimony" that is something sanctioned by a church/ temple/mosque. I don't understand why so many people take offense to using the word marrige as opposed to civil union. Should all couples straight or gay who were not married in a church/temple/mosque be considered a civil union and not a marriage?

Carole, that's exactly what marriage was, is and should remain: PROCREATION that includes the birth of children and raising them by a man and a woman. If you don't see the difference between PROcreation and REcreation nobody can help you. Sorry,

that is what you have been agruing against this whole time. This article is about Domestic Registary not Marriage.

No, like the whole nation we've been made into arguing. On gay issue, race, wealth, etc. That's the problem. We don't have a leader that unites the nation, but divides it.

Victor,
We don't have a major political party who wants to be united. It is our division that gives them power. It's not just one side, it's both sides.

Even two good friends quarrel from time to time. But there has never been such a divider as there is the one currently in the White House and MSM fully supporting him in it. And the gay issue is just the one example Obama and other Marxists aka Liberals, Progressives, etc. divide and try to rule the nation.
I don't remember another time when the nation was so deeply divided on almost every issue like today.
That's the result of the process of destroying fundamental values this nation was built on - Faith, Family, Freedom. That's exactly the values that were destroyed (or somewhere almost) in every communist country, because that only them can make a man free and happy.
Destroying these values is exactly what promised by Obama fundamental transformation is.

Michael D. you wrote... "Victor,
We don't have a major political party who wants to be united. It is our division that gives them power. It's not just one side, it's both sides."

How lame is that????????? You think the public is empowered enough to see through the liberal and conservative smoke screen????? R-U NUTZ? The sad truth is. Americans are very busy with life! They have been educated to think that political conversation is taboo, and the main stream media news and programing does nothing but feed a national agenda of the same! You sir are off your rocker if you think that people will wake up and come to the light! American's are trained to look to the White House for direction....and the direction they are getting from the WHITE HOUSE now, is, DIVISION! On every front, matters not who you are! This jackass in chief is dividing a NATION! Guns=Division! Race=Division! Affluence=Division! Immigration=Division! WAKE UP! He is provoking us all into conflict! We are Americans! That is what he should be shouting from the ROOF OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patriot,
Didn't say they would wake up. Just that both sides are playing the same game for the same corporations. If they keep the public divided and fearfull on one hand. On the other they can continue to strip us of our liberties.

That all you got Bill? lol...whatever sweetie!

When liberals have a deficit of arguments they start calling people names - a looser strategy.

Victor,
Do you believe only liberals partake in that strategy? Both sides do, and they only notice it when it is the other side doing it.

No, Michael, both sides of political establishment make us waste our time and energy on stupid things like gay marriage. I want to believe that not all gays so dumb not to be able to invent other definition for gay unions than marriage and stop annoying and making enemies with straights. They want the same rights as for straight marriages? Fine, don't waste steam on names game.

This isn't an agrument being brought up by the homosexual community, it is an agrument that is being brought up by the political establishment. It is all about following the money in our political system. The money that are paid to the two major parties from the same group of donors.

Patriot acts like a coward. I doubt patriot is his given name. I am not calling him names either, only pointing out facts. Patriot doesn't even post an intellectual statement, only replies to badger or bully others. If someone posts online and hides behind some anonymous identity then they probably have already been told about their ignorance, or maybe they are ashamed of their own life. The one good thing about history is it can not be changed, we have the ability to research and fact check.

Thank you Adam! I pride myself on knowing more about our nations history, so I can school the liberals till it hurts! Sorry if you are all butt hurt!

Martha: Sticks and stones sweet heart!

Nobody denies gays human rights. They are NOT discriminated in this country. But marriage is about PROcreation, not REcreation.

Good point Victor

Why not? But not all at once. You'll have to wait until unions with under aged, animals, dolls, dead, etc liberals will start demanding to call LOVE and MARRIAGE.