MARRIED WITH CHILDREN – The Same-Sex Marriage Debate



1. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

2. the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.

3. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.

4. coitus.

5. genitalia.

verb (used with object)
6. to ascertain the sex of, especially of newly-hatched chicks.

Verb phrase
7. sex up, Informal .
a. to arouse sexually: The only intent of that show was to sex up the audience.
b. to increase the appeal of; to make more interesting, attractive, or exciting: We’ve decided to sex up the movie with some battle scenes.

8. to have sex, to engage in sexual intercourse

Speak against same sex marriage rights is what I will not do, and speak for opposite sex marriage rights is what I will do as the subject matter has been brought to the forefront of the public awareness as a result of President Barack Obama’s vocal and endorsement of same sex marriage rights which happens to be during the second week of his campaign for reelection in 2012 with a trip to Los Angeles today along with a party at the residence of George Clooney and a host of mainstream media business executives, a sector that is known by many to be advocates of LGBT rights and same sex marriage equality under the law.

“Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.

– Wikipedia Natural Law Description.

Without getting into a moral and religious debate and focusing on equality, I will assert the law that actually does in fact overrule the laws of humans, which is known as the law of nature in which human beings and their created and ever changing laws or ideas commonly accepted as laws are dependpent upon, and pose the question as to whether or not, same sex couples whether legally married or a part of a civil union are dependent on sexual intercourse between opposite sex couples for both their own existence in human form as well as the parenting of other humans who whether born in or out of what is commonly known as wedlock are a result of the reproductive processes of heterosexual intercourse which align with the course of nature?

This question is posed due to the fact that Barack Obama mentioned in yesterdays statement that he has to explain to his daughters, who are a result of the same heterosexual birth process, about the fairness of same sex married couples as some of their friends have same sex parents, while each of the individuals in question were born as a result of heterosexual intercourse processes.

In closing, I guesstimate that the debate is going to be about equality of citizens under the eyes of the law, to which I would add that each person who is created equally must also create or procreate equally  as one of the most effective methods of birth control, which was the last church vs. state high powered debate, is through same sex marriage and subsequent intercourse and if same sex couples are dependent on opposite sex couples for parenting privileges and provisions of children for families, then the imbalance of power and equality is self evident from the start, or as stated below for a different and illuminated perspective to consider,

“Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like the horse and carriage
Dad was told by mother
You can’t have one, you can’t have none, you can’t have one without the other!
No Sir!”

-Frank Sinatra,
on Love And Marriage.