Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I have a question for you, then. Why should the traditional definition of marriage be changed to benefit a few people?
|
Because those "few people" want it to change, have good arguments as to why it should change and there aren't really any good reasons that it shouldn't.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Who says i'm not for correcting all social inequalities? Why is that relevant? Here's an interesting question, one that is about as meaningful and relevant as your wondering about why i'm not trying to correct all social inequalities: How come you aren't trying to force everyone to revert back to traditional ways of doing things?
Quote:
|
'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.
|
You do realize that this thread is specifically about gay marriage, no? If i were to come in here arguing about other social inequalities it would actually be considered to be in bad taste. Your assertion that i, or anyone else in here, is ignoring all other forms of social inequality is ridiculous. What it also is is a great example of what happens when people try to justify opposition to gay rights; they invariably end up flailing around, tossing out irrelevant rhetorical questions and trying unsuccessfully to remove the focus of the conversation from their flawed perspective.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You know what you'll never find in nature? Two animals that are married to eachother.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Well, the habit of equating "unnaturalness" with "immoral and disgusting" necessitates that the vast majority of behavior that humans engage in must necessarily be immoral and disgusting. For instance, telecommunications are wholly unnatural and must therefore be immoral. Driving isn't natural either so it must also be immoral. Abstract thought? Arguably unnatural therefore immoral. I could go on.
Most of the things we do are as natural as homosexuality, yet when it comes to condemning behavior homosexuality is the only one that is abhorrent because it isn't natural. Sounds like bullshit to me.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It's also ironic that the divorce rates in the most socially conservative states in the U.S. are higher than the divorce rates in the most socially liberal states. But i digress. If you concede that marriage isn't sacred in the u.s. then why do you think people pretend that it is when the subject of homosexuality comes up?
Quote:
|
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.
|
You could say that there was some sort of correlation there, but you couldn't really claim any sort of significance or causation. Hetero marriage has been in decline as an institution since long before gay marriage was even a blip on the radar.