Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Even if marriage has always been traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman (or several women), so what? Why is that somehow a sufficient excuse to deprive homosexuals of the right to marry?
|
I have a question for you, then. Why should the traditional definition of marriage be changed to benefit a few people? You probably will say something along the lines of "To rectify social inequalities", but then it makes me wonder why you aren't bothering to try to correct all social inequalities and not just those you want to change.
Quote:
|
I guess i just don't see the wisdom in being a social luddite, or at least claiming to be one only when it comes to homosexuality.
|
'Tis ok. I don't see the point in arguing again just one social inequality while ignoring the rest of the them, simply because they don't interest you. It's a two way street, you know.
Quote:
|
The funny thing about the idea that homosexuality and marriage shouldn't mix because homosexuality is unnatural is that homosexuality is actually a great deal more natural than marriage itself. Homosexuality is a rarity in the natural world, so is lifelong monogamy.
|
Actually, in nature, you're more likely to find two organisms which mate for life than you are to find homosexuality. I just thought I would clarify that.
Quote:
|
The fact of the matter is that we don't consider the vast majority of the activities undertaken by the vast majority of people in the world to be immoral and disgusting(at least not because they aren't natural). This being the case, how can the idea that homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural not be a complete line of bullshit?
|
Whatever immoral and disgusting activities you are speaking of, I can assure you that there is opposition to it. Only because I'm curious, what activities are you speaking of?
Quote:
|
I don't think that you can say that marriage has always been considered sacred and take into account modern day divorce rates. Marriage hasn't really been sacred for a long time. The idea of it perhaps, but not the actual practice of it.
|
Let me correct what I said then: In most non-western countries, the idea of marriage is still sacred. It's ironic-- Yet, of no real surprise-- That the divorce rates in most western countries (Which are considered to be socially progressive) are drastically higher than those in non-western countries. Also of no real surprise, is that most western countries are generally more accepting of gay marriages than non-western countries are. I suppose you could say there is some type of direct correlation there, but I won't get into that.
Quote:
|
There is a strong correlation between age and support for homosexual marriage; the younger you are the more likely you are to support it. Most of my generation thinks it's okay, and i can't imagine there will be very many members of my daughter's generation who think gay marriage is wrong. I look forward to the day when we look back upon the people who were against gay marriage like we look back upon the people who were against the civil rights movement.
|
I already know that for a fact. Younger people are generally more accepting of changes than older people are. That still doesn't mean there won't be opposition to gay marriage. As I stated prior, there are a number of factors which influence people's opposition to gay mariage, stemming anywhere from social, political or religious reasons.