No one is arguing there is no affection involved in men and women coming together.
Except that historically (if we really want to talk about traditional marriage) it was never required. Rather, the parents arranged the marriage for children regardless of affection. Again, it was heterosexuals that changed this over the previous few centuries.
Rather, it is a unique need that they have that, once joined physically, a host of other duties and obligations begin to unfold, especially in regard to procreation.
And same-sex couples have the exact same needs as childless opposite sex couples.
I've explained my concerns many times over.
No, you really haven't. You typically just say that it would make the problems in family law worse -- you've never explained exactly how it would make things in family law worse or harder to correct.
You for your part have skirted over the issue of the difference between coitus and other sexual behaviors.
Because there is no reason for me to do so, unless you are claiming the only reason men and women marry are for sex (which you largely show is not true by mentioning unmarried couples below who have sex).
My initial statement is pretty straight forward. To assign the term "marriage" to things that are not actually marriage simply confuses the issue.
How? For that matter, there are writings in the past (and even present) about how feelings of romantic love should not be confused with marriage -- does that make the fact most people now relate the two wrong? Again, you are making an assertion and not showing why it causes a problem. Not to mention that the definition has already been changed, regardless of your acceptance.
We already have evidence that meddling with marriage, making it less authoritative, holding people accountable or not accountable based on whim rather than on a true understanding of the relationship between men, women, and offspring, has had catastrophic consequences for millions of children brought up in the modern, fractured, ill defined "family" that has grown out of the sloppy application of the "no fault divorce" concept.
Actually, we don't have that evidence. We know that marriage is not lasting as long today; yet most of the evidence is actually that women have much more power today than in previous decades. Previously, a woman was solely dependent on her husband for her income. Regardless of no-fault marriage laws, it is unlikely that the divorce rate would be high today if women still largely did not work outside the home and still typically earned a fraction of what men do.
Women were to be protected from violent husbands because of this change. Instead, women are now merely beaten by live ins rather than husbands, and more mischief than could have been imagined has followed besides.
So, what, you want to force them to get married? Further, to borrow an argument many use against hate law statues, why do they need to be married. My understanding is that a woman (or a man) is protected by assault laws, that they are not married does not absolve the man of guilt.
Yet if I cannot "prove" a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples where family law is concerned, I am supposed to just accept that I am basing my opinion on nonsense...?
You've explained nothing. A big part of the entire gay agenda is to be required to explain nothing. It is all about demonizing anyone who has questions, this avoiding having to answer any questions.
No this is funny -- on the one hand you state you cannot prove any real difference but then you blast me for having explained nothing? I'm not the one making the assertions here, rather I'm pointing out where you use poor logic and unsupported claims. And in what way have I demonized you?
In fact, the burden of proof is never on the minority but rather on those trying to restrict equal rights. Blacks were not required to "prove" they were equal before being granted equal rights -- in fact at the time of the 13th and 14th amendments many who voted (possibly even Lincoln, based on his writings) believed Blacks were inferior.
