Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Any colored man can drink at a water fountain, just not a white's only water fountain...
If you can't see the similarities than it is obvious why you can't see the flaws in your argument. At one point, an argument very similar to yours was employed to "protect" marriage from a "redefinition" involving interracial marriage. Fortunately, the traditionalist argument was tossed aside, and as you may have noticed, society didn't crumble.
Marriage has no carved in stone definition. In fact, there are many churches who wholeheartedly support gay marriage. You may claim that it is not in a church's place to "redefine" marriage, but i imagine it would be difficult to do so with a straight face, seeing as how the idea of a traditional marriage has very strong roots in religion.
|
1. True, interracial marriage was illegal at one point. Thankfully, we moved past that. However, interrracial marriage still involved a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Will our society crumble? I don't know. Two men cannot concieve a baby, nor can two women. A growing population is essential for any nation.
2. Wrong. Marriage does have a carved in stone definiton. It was reaffirmed in 1998 un the DOM act, signed gleefully into law by Pres Clinton. Now that brings me back to my question: What is the magic number of "two"? Why not allow polygamy and incestual marriages?