[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
asdf
I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.
And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.
Quote:
You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.
You have never provided your "scientific consensus" but the web-site I gave you had a very well researched document. It appears to me that you ignore research if it is not done by someone who does not have your bias.
Quote:
Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?
And to be a "mother" you must have offspring...hence the root word of "marriage" is derived from the acknowledgement of offspring.
Quote:
I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".
No, now I give you two examples of how it comes to be---one is that we can see it is found in religious texts and it is through religion that those in this country deemed "marriage' worthwhile to society and we can also see that "marriage" implies having offspring. This is a Biblical notion as well.
Quote:
Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.
Where are you coming fomr---consummation creates children....or do you think they come into the world by some other means?
Quote:
That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.
Which is derived from the word mother---hence, implied in marriage is to have offspring.
Quote:
They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.
Nope, the fact that not all couples will have children is an exception to the rule.....unless you think children come by some other means that a man and a woman.
Quote:
That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.
Actually---it very much is concerned with whether a couple has children or not. That is why stats are kept on such things. In fact, if a nation does not have children, then it better start immigrating people as their government will fail...that is a proven fact. So, marriage is the ins***ution in which a society best sees to protecting its future generations.
Quote:
What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.
Because less children are being serviced by Catholic charities adoption services and hence, more children are being harmed rather than helped by gay marriage. What---is now your argument going to also state that those who provide services must be forced to give up their civil liberties on how they provide services?
Quote:
Separate is (still) not equal.
Skin color and behavior are two different things. This argument is silly. If behavior could all be determined as equal, that opens a whole slippery slope of what behaviors should be considered equal.
Quote:
But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?
I leave that up to those who want the rights.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".
The U.S. Supreme Court, also in the case of polygamy, determined it had the right to define what marriage was.
Quote:
You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.
Yes, hetersexuality is also a behavior. Marriage is an ins***ution that defines how society looks on that behavior and the possible ramifications (offspring) and what would be best boundaries for that behavior.
Quote:
You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.
I give you the Bible as my proof that marriage is a religous ins***ution first and foremost. Please provide an older document that states otherwise if you think you have proof that marriage is not a religious ins***ution first and foremost.
Quote:
Consummation ≠ childbearing.
Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?
The fact that a marriage can be annuled for infertility or is never consummated shows that marraige is more than just what happens at a wedding. Marriage is for the protection of offspring. That becomes obvious when you see how the law surrounding marriage has always worked. The fact that you would ask me if this is a "good" thing makes me realize that your views of marriage are not congruent with why the laws of have been created in the first place. This is not whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but merely to acknowledge that marriage is for the protection of offspring---and if there no possibility of offspring or consumation of the marriage; then society do not look at is as a "marriage" and thus they can get the marraige annulled rather than a divorce.
Quote:
Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.
Do you know any same-sex couples?
Yes, many---and well. Their relationships are not the same.
Quote:
That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.
I am saying that if I gay person can tell the difference between a man and a woman when choosing a partner, we also can see a difference. It is wrong on one hand for them to say--I am gay because I see a difference and prefer the difference and on the other hand ask us to not see the difference that are the very criteria for their choice.
Quote:
It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.
It is not a red-herring. This issue has been brought up before...does the state have the right to determine what is a "marriage" based on what they think is best for society. In the case of polygamy--it was decided. Now, you want to argue that there are basic fundamental rights that all humans have regarding marriage. If gays or lesbians think they have this right, then why not polygamists? That is a very real and pertinent question. The state decided against the civil liberties before of adults choosing for themselves how to define marriage---why do you think they should not decide in the case of gay marriage, but should in the case of polygamists marriages?