Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
You can argue this for all you want, but being married is a privilege-- One which isn't given to any persons. This is evidenced by the fact that, in many cases, the Supreme Court has refused to make any direct ruling on the issue and, for the most part, has left it up to the states to decide from themselves whether or not they want to extend those privleges to another group of people.
|
I'm stating a fact. Marriage is a civil right in the United States. Loving v. Virginia. It has not been overturned since.
Quote:
Your reasons as to why incest are wrong, just like many other people, are only a facade to cover up the "I think it's wrong and it shouldn't be legalized!" aspect of it.
Similiarly, my reason as to opposing gay marriage is "I think it's wrong and shouldn't be legalized!". Therefore, what's the difference between my stance on gay marriage and your stance on incest?
In fact, aren't you guilty of doing the same thing in which people have accused me of? Your refusal to grant another group of the people the same rights in which you are advocating for would make you a bigot (At least, it would be some people's definition of the word).
|
I'm astounded. Really, truly astounded. You asked a question, and I answered. You then ignore my answer, make one up I manifestly did not give, argue against it, and call me a bigot for holding that position, a position which I did not take.
Quote:
|
You could try to make cases on keeping incest outlawed on the basis of bilogical reasons but, then again, I could make an argument to keep gay marriage outlawed on the basis of social structure.
|
Well, that would be different then, wouldn't it?
Quote:
Quote:
|
As I posted earlier, I really don't care whether or not homosexual's are allowed to marry or not. However, for centuries, marriage has always been deemed betweeen a male and female. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I don't know of any culture which has ever promoted gay marriages (If you know of any, then enlighten me). Whatever the reasons-- Religious, political, social or otherwise-- The status quo regarding marriage is that it's strictly between a man and a woman.
|
That was my original statement. Somewhere along the line you started to play semantics (That is you started to debate the meaning of words instead of the actual post), and took what I said completely out of context, if only to benefit yourself. I'm not exactly sure why everyone else knew I was referencing ancient cultures (Someone even responded as such) while you wanted to throw out recent examples 
|
Semantics matter, esepcially in a debate regarding what a "marriage" is and should be.
The bolded part is an absolute statement. It has two smaller absolute statments in it.
Quote:
|
Erm... Once again, you're playing semantics. People have just recently tried to challenge the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. And while, in some countries, they might have won that right, in others they've taken gigantic hits (That last sentence really wasn't relevant, but since you decided to throw in your $.02, I felt that I would do the same).
|
I see you recognize it as a right. I accept your concession.
Quote:
|
Are you not reading any of my posts? I already acknowledged the fact (Somewhere on the first page) that sometimes marriage occurs between multiple spouses. I have no problems with that (My grandfather in Nigeria has two wives, after all), as I deem marriage to be between a man and a woman. I have no problems with heterosexual marriage. Gay marriages, however, I do have a problem with.
|
Cool. So if Grace and I go out and find a man to marry, you'd be fine with the marriage? Hmmmm. There are a few gay male couples at church. We could marry one of those couples, the husbands would have their room, the wives thiers, and it's all kosher. A capital idea!
Ohh, and built in sperm donors for our children, and a surrogate for theirs! This idea just gets better and better.
Quote:
|
But I have a question for you: Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted practice, but we don't legalize gay marriages.
|
Homosexuality isn't a practice, it's a condition.
Quote:
|
Because it's not. It has nothing to do with sexuality. It's main focus was social structure, in which either men took on the roles of women or women took on the roles of men. Not surprising enough, was the fact that these people played integral parts in the social structure of their native tribes.
|
Who's playing semantics now? By the way, I have no objection to semantic arguments. You ought to see a thread on my comic book website where I argue that a costume, a uniform, and an outfit are not all the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangably. My dear lord you cannot believe how some people would stretch logic to the breaking point to try to justify their unjustifiable position. A uniform by definition has to be designed as part of a set of similar garments, otherwise it isn't uniform. I just cannot see why such a simple concept is beyond some people.
Back on topic.
If a man dresses as a woman, takes on the social role of a woman, and forms a permanent mating pair with another male, I cannot see how that's not either transsexuality or homosexuality. If you accept that as a social sex change, it's transsexual, or at least bi-gender (like Ty Greenstein, my god s/he's hot), and if not, then you have a male/male pairing that is not only accepted but often celebrated, and in dozens of different cultures across pre-Colombian North America.
Quote:
|
I never said it was. Once again, you're taking one of my earlier quotes out of context. The homosexual tendencies which manifest themselves in nature either stem from procreation or social structure (And, even then, it is very limited). In humans, neither of the two is true (Though, I'm sure that you would like to convince yourself that the second is true).
|
So there we have it, homosexuality in nature.
Quote:
|
I could sit here and explain to you the institution of marriage and it's social implications, but you would more than likely try to challenge that, as well.
|
Maybe, maybe not. I am married by the way, just not civilly married, and I would prefer to be legally married, so I think I value the institution just as much as you do. Among other things, it provides a stable environment for the rearing of children.
Quote:
That wasn't exactly my claim. To quote myself, yet again:
When one says "Unnatural", I believe them to mean a deviance from the original function or purpose.
|
Another semantic argument. Again, I don't object in the least to semantic arguments, but for someone who dislikes them, you seem to use them quite a bit.
When I say "unnatural" I mean either "not ocurring in nature" or "actions deviating from one's own nature". If I were to have sex with a man, that would be unnatural for me.
Quote:
I'm not going to get into this too much, but the top two reasons why dogs will try to hump other males or even people usually boils down to one of two things:
1.) Hormonal imbalances and
2.) The exertion of dominance over another organism.
|
And lack of avaialable female partners when stimulated.
This explains the motivation for the behavior, it does not mean that it isn't homosexual.
Oh, and in response to 2, on a paersonal note, last weekend my wife dominance over me--I'm an organism, by the way--a whole lot of dominance. Yeah, that was very nice. I'm hoping for some more exertions of dominance this coming weekend when we both have time. Oh, yeah, I'm hoping for quite a lot of exerting.
Gilda