I used the term "higher power" to mean both gods and government.I often tell people I'm married to avoid this conversation. I'm and bad-ass regardless. Strictly from a pragmatic standpoint (not a legal or deep philosophical one), gay zovirax coupon people already won the right to have sex. So if religion is the big objection, gay people are going to be fucking married or not. And its not like we're in the 1940's, where stopping interracial marriages effectively would stop interracial sex (at least publicly). In the real 2010 world, gay people are going to be violating biblical scriptures no matter what. I just don't get the religious objection. The damage has already been done.As for it being bad for the state, EVEN IF you could somehow prove that heterosexual relations are superior to gay ones, and that straight marriages are better for the state than gay ones, its not like gay people are going to suddenly marry opposite sex buy zovirax online partners. They'll just remain single. I don't get what the state interest in this is. That's why I said "those that need to find approval...pathetic". Nowhere did I say ALL people get married for 'approval', if that is where the confusion lies. One can get married for many reasons... the legal and religious reasons to do it are distinct and where my issue lies. Oh really? So if he was straight and found in favor of Prop 8 would you argue that he should have recused himself? According to your logic, Thurgood Marshall should have recused himself from civil rights cases, too. To say no pun intended doesn't there have to be a possible pun involved. I went to the store (no pun intended) and bought some milk. See? Nope. Doesn't work. Laws against polygamy are aimed at everyone--laws against gay marriage are aimed only at gay people.No one is allowed to zovirax cream dosage have more than one legal spouse. (You can enter into polygamous relationships and have extra wives on the side--even have them officiated by your local religion, but they won't be recognized by the state. That's what the Fundamentalist LDS in Texas does.)As for incestuous relationships, it's in society's interest that we don't have children born from unions between close relatives (due to possible birth defects). It would be a significant burden on the state to have to monitor these couples so that they didn't reproduce, so it make sense to just ban them. (And honestly, how many people want to marry their sibling/aunt/uncle?)As for " to any group of people zovirax ointment for cold sores who are willing to be legally united " I don't know who else that would be. Animals can't consent to marry and children can't consent to marry because children can't enter into contracts. (although in most states, people aged 16 can marry with parental consent. in NH, a 13-year-old girl can marry a 14-year-old boy).If you want to marry your 12-year-old sister, then go ahead and sue your state. You have the right to do that. And as predicted we are not going to here how allowing gay marriage interferes with zovirax for cold sores straight marriage. There's been no studies, mainly because it's illegal behavior, but it my anecdotal experience it is not especially uncommon. The most common variation is a soldier weds a civilian friend or acquaintance of the opposite sex on the understanding that the soldier will pocket the BAH while the civilian gets Tricare. I wasn't making an argument against anything- I was just foreseeing a potentially humorous outcome of what is a just decision. And the main benefit I was considering is BAH. I mean, let women walk around without their shirts on. You've convinced me Kevin. I'm sure most straight men would join me in approval of this important civil right. I guess Women would have a case then if they wanted to bring a case to have the right to walk around without a shirt on. Is there a woman you know that is going to file a case soon? No? Oh, then you are just throwing out a red herring because you don't have an zovirax cold sore argument beyond bigotry. Kevin Clark: "Lawrence, if taken to its logical conclusion, invalidates all laws and even the concept of law."How? (If it's the "morality" argument again, I've provided example after example about how there are rational, non-moral justifications for most of our laws. Again, laws against murder and theft can be justified on the grounds of enlightened self-interest rather than on some moral principle.) I apologize. Now you said i didn't answer your question, but I did. I pointed out the fact that often people don't have sex until after marriage, so they didn't know whether or not they could successfully procreate until after marriage. You completely ignored that point. Also, a heterosexual relationship that doesn't result in children is still a model for the ideal relationship. By comparison, a homosexual relationship can NEVER produce children. You say you understand my zovirax vs abreva point about general rules and behavioral ideals, but your comments suggest it all went over your head. I replied in the wrong spot. It is above this post.