Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Are homosexuals trying to be married on the basis on "Love" or on the basis of "Reaping the legal benefits of marriage"? If it's the first option, then marriage shouldn't be an issue. If it's the second option, then that would undercut the entire premise of gay marriage (It seems that many people who favor gay marriage love to use the phrase, "If two people love one another, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?").
|
Different people have different reasons; there isn't one entire premise for gay marriage. Just as there isn't just one reason offered as justification for opposing gay marriage.
Anyway, i was wondering about your definition of unnatural. You said that it meant "a deviance from the original function or purpose." As you must know, humans now do a whole lot of things that we didn't do when our species originally came into existence. By your definition the vast majority of human activity is just as unnatural as homosexuality. If that is indeed the case, how can you use the concept of "unnatural" as a means to justify much of anything? How can you even presume to be able to judge original function or purpose? If you place such a high priority on original function or purpose, whatever that may mean, how can you support any kind of human progress in any sense?
I don't think it's that productive or even reasonable to place a high priority on conformity to "original function or purpose" because in doing so you would necessarily deny the value of most any kind of evolutionary adaptations and adaptation in general.