Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NCB
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.
|
Why do you cling to the notion of "one man and one woman" as somehow having any significance at all? If the race of the participants is arbitrary, how is it that gender isn't?
Quote:
|
Two men cannot concieve a baby, nor can two women. A growing population is essential for any nation.
|
If you have any credible information linking homosexuality and population decline by all means share it. Otherwise this is a red herring.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, if the legal one is all that matters, and a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction decides that that legal definition is invalid, than i guess you'd have no problem with gay marriage, correct?
I would imagine, though, under those circumstances you'd fall back to your traditionalist definition of marriage, which probably conveniently ignores recent history where marriage was as much about an exchange of property as anything else.
Quote:
|
Now that brings me back to my question: What is the magic number of "two"? Why not allow polygamy and incestual marriages?
|
I don't care. I believe in the idea of trusting consenting adults, do you?