Marriage has always been about a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Anything else has never been marriage.
Your spin is irrelevent.
Your historical re-writing is irrelevant. Simply because you do not wish to recognize what people in the past have done, does not mean it has not happened.
I'd say marriage is/was about two things" Sex when your young and putting up with the old bag when you grow old.
Again, look back at history. Marriages were arranged more often than they weren't. Sex was a duty within the marriage and was also an activity sought out outside of it for pleasure. I mean not always, as the lower on the economic/social ladder you were the less time you had for any such "extra curricular" activities. But it was not uncommon for the well off to have lovers on the side. In some of the eastren cultures it was even expected and the wife might even help her husband to select his mistress.
Biologically speaking, according to natural selection, gay marriage would not be worth a damn to the evolution of our species, besides the obvious extinction of people who want to cohabit with others of the same sex.
Biologically speaking, according to natural selection, marriage with one or both partners being sterile would not be worth a damn to the evolution of our species.
Marriage to "the person you love" is not a basic fundamental right.
Or it is and it just hasn't caught up through the legal system yet. Similar to how freedom from slavery is a basic fundamental right yet for the blacks it wasn't there till much later.
No, everything I said is correct. It is private property, everyone does have a right to control access to their property, and therefore they have a right to deny whoever they want from having access and use of their property. This comes from understanding property.
I saw several other posts on this so this is just the one I'm using to reference to the sub-topic.
If a country's government controls the media and tells them what they can and can not write, we claim that the people are denied their right to freedom of press. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I hear of this country or that denying people their rights. So obviously these rights exist regardless of what the law states. Therefore noting that what Henrin claims as a right runs contrary to law is not an argument, unless you want to argue that in mid east countries women are not being denied rights because the law there says they have none. Therefore, you need to come up with a compelling argument as to why is it not a property's owner's right to run a business and deny whoever they wish access to the business other than it's the law.
It fails for me as well. There are heterosexual who can have children, but can marry. Homosexuals can adopt and raise kids. And people do marry for reasons other than children. He's also correct that we will keep making babies, not that a few less around the world wouldn't hurt.
Did you mean "There are heterosexual who
can't have children, but can marry."?
Yes you do, read what you wrote:
None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
So if a man marries a bisexual woman, and they decide later to add another woman to their union, you would discriminate against them.
Religious bigotry a it's finest.
It really depends upon how the law is set up and how you read what Ali is saying. It could be set up that each marriage/civil union is only between two consenting adults, but that a given person may simultaneously possess multiple marriages/civil unions. Therefore, he's not discriminating against group families. Or he could be simply be limiting with in the current scope of events and saving the multi-spouse issue for later when it is more feasible. After all the current topic is in regards to two person only relationships.
And when did Ali bring in religion to the topic? Seems like you're assigning.