So far, it is a very interesting type of back-and-forth, but honestly it's a little black and white. Defining marriage as just for reproduction and then using that one definition to back a whole arguement is a little short-sighted. I may be a romantic, but marriage is supposed to be for love, and who is to argue what sex, race, or age has the ability to love one another? Honestly, I'm glad you guys have been able to have civil conversations, but the institution of marriage doesn't need fixing, just a quick definition change. Marriage is an adaptable idea that is a social construct. If marriage is broken, it's the problem of the society that we live in and what that society has done in shaping marriage. This suppositive 50% divorce rate isn't due to a broken system, and allowing gays to enter into that system purely to stabilize it is missing the really problem. A relationship can't be broken down into components, like you guys are doing, and therefore it can't pushed into some pretty little box. Anyone should be allowed to get married simply because everyone should have the right to be happy, to be able to sit beside someone you love in the hospital, and to live your life without having to be scorned for wanting love. There we go, no components, just a want for happiness.
More information about text formats