I don't really care what the justices of any stripe say on that....
marriage, in many cultures, has not always been between a man and a woman.
is it extremist to recognize facts?
Not "many cultures". That's a lie. Marriage has always had one meaning to 99.99999999999999% of all human beings who ever lived. Ever. Even the liberal justices on the supreme court recognize this. You are the extremist here.
That's not what I said, nor does that have anything to do with socialism. I said that there are no special rights being handed out, or that gays are alone in demanding equality of marriage. I want the right to marry a consenting adult of either sex, regardless of whether or not I intend to use it. But I certainly didn't advocate removing the requirement for consent for marriage, so the idea that anyone can marry "whatever" they want is certainly outside the scope of what I was talking about. But you're not suffering from a grievous mental deficiency, so you already knew that. So why not get off the slippery slope and talk about what we're talking about, the right of consenting adults to marry one another.
Yes gays are being given the special right to change the definition of what marriage is from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
Why do only gays get this special right on not any other sexual interest group? If "Marriage is a Civil Right" who gets excluded? Do you believe marriage is a "Civil Right"?
Gays are not a separate species. Whatever genetic factors produce homosexuality are not possessed exclusively by homosexuals. For all we know, it might be a side effect of some other beneficial mutation. That homosexuals do not have children with each other is immaterial to a small propensity for homosexuality to be a part of what makes us human. What makes an individual survive and reproduce is not always beneficial to the species as a whole. Effectively mixing a portion out of the gene pool (though plenty of gay men and women had children with heterosexuals throughout history, and continue to do so now, also through new technologies that remove the need for heterosexual sex for them to procreate) in exchange for other benefits could be helpful to the survival of the species.
Gays cannot procreate through gay sex
Bronson, do try debating what I said. I know that it would be far easier for you to debate what you WANT me to have said, but challenge yourself. I said that procreation is not a determinant to the ability to marry after YOU commented on procreation. Stick to the topic.
Nobody ever said you have to procreate when you get married, but women or men who are infertile have still been able to get married because that union still fit within the definition of what marriage is. Gays are demanding the special right to change the definition of what marriage is. Stick to the topic.
1) Your argument is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and is therefore invalid.
2) If other groups want to redefine marriage, let them try. This discussion is about SSM. Your red herrings are irrelevant.
3) Marriage is NOT about bringing children as I have proven. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
So, your entire post has been reduced to rubble. What new irrelevancies are you going to post now?
1) Rubbish.
2) Let them try? So anything goes right? I thought marriage was a "civil right". You would discriminate against other people who want to change the definition of marriage to fit their needs?
3) Marriage as an institution has ALWAYS been about children. Even if infertile couples can't make a baby, that union was still man + woman and those people didn't try and change the definition of what marriage means. Marriage however has always had specific social and economic purposes that do have to do with spawning new taxpayers.
There are literally 5 posters right now who can't even get their narrative straight. It's pure emotion with the Left.
Where's my link? Where's your proof? You speak for all of mankind do you? Wow, that's enormous pressure. How do you do it?
Someone forgot to send your memo to Europe. Same sex marriage is legal in many countries there. And has been for some time.
Even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court recognized marriage has always meant man + ?. You can try and make a morally relative argument about "spirit brothers" or something, but it's ludicrous to try. Someone even went as far as to mention Nero. It's not my problem if you a radical extremist who is trying to shape reality around your emotions and not the other way around.
So just to make sure we are ALL on the same page
1) Is Marriage a "Civil Right"? Still waiting for the definitive answer on this one. Been pages of hand wringing, name calling, and dancing around the question. Quite hilarious.
2) If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their needs, what other sexual interest groups get the same "right" and which ones don't?
I'd like to condense all the raging and histrionics to these 2 particular points. Thanks
