Well there is one reason and it's religious. According to certain beliefs, it will bring the destruction.
"marriage" is a word coopted by religion but it was a word created in civic society and NOT tied to any religions but religions can no more claim it for all use then the Boys Club of America could. Groups do not get to claim words and then apply their own exclusive definition to them.
MAGA morons only want to gay bash. Correct that marriage isn't necessarily a religious right. A couple can walk up to the country clerk's office and be married there. It's a legal contract recognized by the government for legal reasons such as survivorship, property ownership, taxes, etc.
HATE,
...and one's religious beliefs should never be imposed upon an American. The MAGAts whine all the time about Sharia Law yet they are the ones attempting to impose religious law upon all Americans.
I have a news flash for you, and that is ALL WORDS ARE MADE UP. That is an absolute truth. You can look up when most words were first made up.
The statement is about civil unions. The newly civilly-unioned couple can remain civilly-unioned for as long as they wish without procreating.
Procreating absolutely is about procreating.
Correct.
Correct. Marriage is about potential for procreation.
If they were refused it wasn't because they were gay, you dimwitted inbred donkey. Could two straight guys get married back then? Please don't whine about why would two straight guys want to get married. First want has nothing to do with marriages just like children so stfu. Next maybe they may want the "benefits" of marriage. Fact is they weren't refused marriage because they were gay. Idiot
Who said anything about beating up queers?
The LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ movement is all about supremacy. All outsiders MUST recognize men as women, women as men, children as people to be groomed, and men sticking their penises up other men's buttholes (and women rubbing up against other women and/or sticking dildos up themselves) as equivalent to one man and one woman having sex (the in-principle ability to procreate). These are all perversions.
They aren't (and weren't) being denied anything other than what they actively chose to deny.
... only because they actively chose to enter into a civil union rather than a marriage.
Yes.
No, it isn't.
Irrelevant. Regardless, man/man and woman/woman cannot procreate (not even in principle). Only man/woman can procreate.
Yes, it is.
Having children is limited to a man and a woman.
You very well might make the podium this month for this doozy.
IOW, a man needs to involve a woman and a woman needs to involve a man. Ergo, only a man and a woman can procreate.
Why wouldn't I?
So you at least agree that two men (regardless of their sexual urges) cannot procreate.
Marriage isn't about procreating, but rather the (in principle) potential to procreate.
Right. It is about the (in principle) potential to procreate.
Irrelevant.
True. So?
Why would you even think that?
Don't worry; you've already claimed it.
Yes, a man can procreate with a woman. This is already established for most people. You, however, are in a paradox regarding this (see above).
There is still no other definition.
No it hasn't.
A man and a man cannot marry.