Most on the pro-gay marriage side of the argument, when it boils down to it, really just have a problem with the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage we’ve had in Western civilization for centuries. It’s the “Judeo-Christian” extraction that bothers them, if they were to be honest. Of course, without that extraction, there would be no Western civilization, which is what they want, it seems. What Judeo-Christophobes![/quote]
This is true. I have a problem the people trying to define marriage as part of one religion, when it is actually part of humanity. I must be a Judeo-Christophobe.
Although, I am curious as to what the key differences are in marriage in say Christianity and Hinduism, or Christianity and Islam? As far as I can tell, there aren’t (supposed to be) any.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Moreover, we don’t want to just extend benefits and incentives to people who just “raise children” - we want to extend benefits and incentives to people who “raise children the right way”, that is, in a way that incentivizes the creators of said child to stick together to provide for that child.[/quote]
I’m probably misinterpreting your post here, but it sounds like you think marriage as defined in the Bible would eliminate cheating.
Read my post. There are more to “benefits” than government handouts - which I made mention of.
Moreover, we don’t want to just extend benefits and incentives to people who just “raise children” - we want to extend benefits and incentives to people who “raise children the right way”, that is, in a way that incentivizes the creators of said child to stick together to provide for that child.
And, since you can’t be bothered to learn any ethic outside of “if it feels good, do it - wheeeee!”, marriage serves to put important social guardrails on behavior we don’t like through…wait for it…Scorn and Shame. We don’t men going around impregnating everything that moves and doing little to nothing to take care of the children he has fathered, even if the relationships that produced said child were consensual. Acts outside of marriage were treated as Shameful in order to disincentivize such behavior - because, as a society, we don’t want it for what should be obvious reasons, but maybe I shouldn’t assume you know more than you do.
[/quote]
These two points seem to be the crux of your argument yet they seem like non sequitors.
Point #1 “we want to extend benefits and incentives to people who “raise children the right way”, that is, in a way that incentivizes the creators of said child to stick together to provide for that child.”
How does the couple being gay or polygamous change that? It seems like in your view only heterosexual couples that are officially married can achieve your standard. I have some common law couples I know that would disagree much less gay couples.
Point #2 “marriage serves to put important social guardrails on behavior we don’t like through…wait for it…Scorn and Shame. We don’t men going around impregnating everything that moves and doing little to nothing to take care of the children he has fathered, even if the relationships that produced said child were consensual.”
Exactly how would gay men or women run around impregnating evrything that moves? What about the tens of thousands of children with siblings from multiple fathers that the father was married to the mother at time of birth?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
And do you have proof of how old the world is without the use of assumption?
[i]Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
Historically, estimates of the age were based on either creation myths in religious texts, or philosophical interpretations of geologic features, most notably by the Greek philosophers Theophrastus and Xenophanes.
Biblical young earth creationists believe that the earth was formed as recently as 4004 BC, whereas Hindu beliefs have the universe enduring for billions of years before being destroyed and recreated in an endless cycle.[/i]
I like mathematical calculations. Based on assumptions, but logical ones at that. I prefer logic.[/quote]
I guess you missed the part about “without the use of assumption”?
Radiometric dating is based on an observable time measurement that is then mathematically extrapolated beyond what is observable based on, yes boys and girls, assumption (No mater how “logical” is still assumption).
These two points seem to be the crux of your argument yet they seem like non sequitors.
Point #1 “we want to extend benefits and incentives to people who “raise children the right way”, that is, in a way that incentivizes the creators of said child to stick together to provide for that child.”
How does the couple being gay or polygamous change that? It seems like in your view only heterosexual couples that are officially married can achieve your standard. I have some common law couples I know that would disagree much less gay couples.
Point #2 “marriage serves to put important social guardrails on behavior we don’t like through…wait for it…Scorn and Shame. We don’t men going around impregnating everything that moves and doing little to nothing to take care of the children he has fathered, even if the relationships that produced said child were consensual.”
Exactly how would gay men or women run around impregnating evrything that moves? What about the tens of thousands of children with siblings from multiple fathers that the father was married to the mother at time of birth?[/quote]
You may want to catch up by reading the last couple of pages. My contentions that you cite above were not offered to address the question “why not gay marriage?”, but rather “why not get rid of marriage as a public institution at all?”. Separate issue to which my arguments above were directed.
We got to that question because those that wanted non-traditional marriage recognized in law (or equalized with traditional marriage, at least) came to the predictable conclusion that recognizing all consenting adult relationships as “equal” and therefore worthy of being honored as a “marriage” essentially dissolved the entire point of marriage, therefore getting rid of it as a public institution. They were ok with that as the next logical step, and my comments above addressed that logical next step and why getting rid of marriage was a bad idea.
‘Redefining’ marriage would have some excellent benefits: (1) no more family loyalties — only loyalty to the State (2) declining populations — aged people loyal to the State, for their ‘benefits’.
(3) children could be produced and raised by their new mommy, the State.
"Thus, the 2000 population of Europe is 727 million and the “medium” projection for 2050 is 603 million, a loss of 124 million people, or 17 percent, an unprecedented drop, hard to halt, let alone reverse. The “low” scenario for Europe, which unlike the “medium” version does not arbitrarily reflate low fertility rates, puts Europe at 556 million, a loss of 171 million, or 24 percent. Such a dizzying tailspin yields a senior theme park of castles and cuisine, disguised as a continent.
America, on the other hand, is slated to grow from 283 million today to 397 million in 2050, which pushes up the MDR average. But that American projection supposes increasing fertility and immigration, which is dubious. American fertility has been below the “replacement” rate of 2.1 children per woman for 30 consecutive years. Why would it go up? Will immigration go up? Mexican demographers say that Mexico has already breached the 2.1 rate, down from a 1965-70 rate of 6.8 children!
Like Mexico, there are already 21 nations from the LDR that have fertility rates below the replacement rate, including China, Thailand, Cuba, both North and South Korea and Kazakhstan. Yet a U.N. projection protocol mindlessly precludes an above-replacement LDR country from declining below replacement and, moreover, projects those that have back toward replacement."
I’m probably misinterpreting your post here, but it sounds like you think marriage as defined in the Bible would eliminate cheating.
Ok… I’m sure.[/quote]
Wow - how did you get all of that from my post?
I don’t think privileging traditional marriage would “eliminate” cheating, nor did I suggest so.
It does, as I posted, incentivize men to stay at home with the family they have created with another woman to form a permanent union between the two biological parents that created the child in the first place - which is the very best outcome.
“Cheating” won’t be eliminated, but it will be shamed if there is a prevailing institution of marriage, and that is exactly the way we want it.
I’m probably misinterpreting your post here, but it sounds like you think marriage as defined in the Bible would eliminate cheating.
Ok… I’m sure.
Wow - how did you get all of that from my post?
I don’t think privileging traditional marriage would “eliminate” cheating, nor did I suggest so.
It does, as I posted, incentivize men to stay at home with the family they have created with another woman to form a permanent union between the two biological parents that created the child in the first place - which is the very best outcome.
“Cheating” won’t be eliminated, but it will be shamed if there is a prevailing institution of marriage, and that is exactly the way we want it.
[/quote]
So… parents who adopt are doing something wrong?
Why can’t we give incentive for men and women to stay at home with the family they have created. Period. ???
Why are biological parents always the best outcome? If the dad or mom just up and left, obviously they aren’t parent of the year material.
You’re telling me adopted kids are more likely to be fucked up than kids with biological parents raising them? Study please?
So… parents who adopt are doing something wrong?
Why can’t we give incentive for men and women to stay at home with the family they have created. Period. ???
Why are biological parents always the best outcome? If the dad or mom just up and left, obviously they aren’t parent of the year material.
You’re telling me adopted kids are more likely to be fucked up than kids with biological parents raising them? Study please?[/quote]
Where do you come up with half your nonsense?
We are talking about a general rule - that parents who created the child should be incentivized to take care of that child. Period. And there isn’t a single reason we should deviate from that general rule because some parents do a better job than others. Preposterous.
If the parents just “up and left”, that has absolutely zero to do with whether we should have an institution of marriage in place to otherwise encourage and cajole people into taking care of the lives they bring into the world as a general rule. It is a separate problem, independent of whether we want marriage or not.
Good Lord.
Now, a separate question is “if some adults want to adopt an unwanted child, why shouldn’t we let them get all the benefits of marriage by honoring whatever relationship they are in by calling it a marriage?” - and we are back to the exact same issue that was thrashed out pages ago.
And, from the most basic point of view - who said adults that adopt can’t marry?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask. I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here I’ll make another bad attempt at logic (just for shits and giggles): Logic would dictate that a smarter person would understand an article better than a more foolish one. This means, if both read the same article, the smarter person would be better able to answer questions about its content and relate examples from the work.
Its clear to you that you’re the more intelligent of the two of us, yet, having read all three articles, and being asked for an example you would have exacted from them, cannot produce a single one.
Clearly, there is no point in me reading them, since, if you cannot find in them an example of gay marriage leading to a decline in either straight marriage or straight procreation (that is not an example of an act of anti-gay bigotry/bias), I have no hope whatsoever.
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s amazing that you can manage to be so right, and yet so wrong, at the same time.
I’m not rewriting them because they’re long, the answers are long, and they require the length to cover the bases of the arguments. That’s why I’m providing the links. I’m not about to spend the time trying to condense and/or re-write them. Read them, or quit asking for what you’ve already been provided. Or again, bugger off.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I asked you to pull one example out of them. Guess that was a lot to ask.[/quote]
Quite: I’m finished spoon-feeding you. Read.
[quote]
…
BostonBarrister wrote:
As to yours, again, it’s not simply incentivizing reproduction. It’s also about incentivizing the formation and survival of marriage because of reproduction. See my previous posts.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And legally supporting the idea that the most healthy, stable environment for reproduction and raising children is a one man one woman couple. [/quote]
You’re not getting it; the use of “incentivizing” for two separate goals is apparently too confusing.
Male/female couples already produce the overwhelmingly vast majority of kids. Those kids would be better off in stable environments with both of their parents present. And society would be hugely better off if the kids were better off. That’s the reason for particularly incentivizing the formation and survival of male/female marriages.
One of the biggest issues in communities mired in crime and poverty is children coming from broken homes, and particularly male children growing up with no male role models or discipline enforcers. (See this for a few paragraphs inadvertently highlighting the point: American Murder Mystery - The Atlantic )
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should society in general take any risk, for any reason, to extend a behavioral incentive meant to produce a particular effect to a small minority that does not wish to follow the parameters that have been set up for that behavioral incentive?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Because bigotry is bad, supporting it is bad, laws that support it are bad, and supporting laws that support it is bad. Even if the intent was never to legitimize only heterosexual monogamist relationships, if that is the result (which it is), the law is supporting bigotry and should be changed. Even if the “behvioral incentive” has nothing to do with discrimination, if it discriminates (which it does), it should be changed, especially when other laws could easily be enacted that would provide the same incentive without supporting bigotry or discrimination (such as, if you are raising a child, you get benefits, if you aren’t, you don’t).[/quote]
For some reason, you and people like you think marriage is about what the adults want, or what might hurt their feelings (“The state won’t ‘legitimize’ my relationship with a tax break! The horror!”).
It’s not. Your feelings are irrelevant; something that may be nice to consider, but that are completely separate from the policy goal.
So if taking account of your feelings runs the risk of undermining the policy goal, for whatever reason, tough cookies. Now go cry me a river.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No - if ending a perceived/claimed discrimination has the possible/probable effect of undermining the goal of the incentive, then tough cookies. The general default of our system is majority rule, with a few distinct protections for individual rights that protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Minorities such as homosexuals? From the majority such as christians? Hmmm… maybe you can, now, draw the line between racism/sexism/homophobia.
Those protects exist exactly so that members of the majority cannot simply say “tough cookies”.[/quote]
I think you missed the point of “a few distinct protections”. Being protected from not getting an economic incentive because you don’t prefer to follow the rules around getting the incentive isn’t one of them.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Not getting a particular tax break is not the tyranny of the majority; getting access to every single governmental spending program is not a fundamental right. And the government’s job is not to give a stamp of legitimacy to each and every social position, irrespective of the government’s policy goals; i.e., if getting “legitimacy” has the potential to undermine the policy goal, tough cookies for the demand for government’s endorsement.
CappedAndPlanIt:
The governments job is to protect the rights of its citizens.[/quote]
Citizens don’t have the right to specially tailored tax incentives, or to force other citizens to label their relationships in a certain manner.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, just out of curiousity, what’s your view on affirmative action, which actually does cross over one of those supposedly inviolate categories of discrimination, and for arguably negative effect?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m pretty sure the group that has seen the most benefit from affirmative action is white women. How do you feel about that?[/quote]
I couldn’t give two sh*ts; not even one, really. Now how about answering?
Your individual feelings of illegitimacy are irrelevant.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Seriously, this just sounds like whiny bullcrap to me. “Oh, we need the government to recognize us in order to be legitimate - you’re violating our rights by making us feel bad!” The answer is: Grow a pair, live your life and don’t look to everyone else to legitimize yourself and what you want.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ignorant. [/quote]
Your entire response just confirmed the impression I had above. Your whole position is essentially that you have a Constitutional right to prohibit the government from hurting your feelings.
If you were to somehow get your wish, and the USSC ruled along the lines of the CA court that not only must homosexual couples be offered each and every incentive made available to heterosexual couples, and also that it must be labeled “marriage” and not “civil union” or something else, and then Bill and George tell someone “We’re married!” and people answer “Hey, congratulations!” if currently over half of them are really thinking “EEEEEWWWWW!!! YUCK!!!” there is nothing you can do about that.
Grow a pair, live your life and don’t look to everyone else to legitimize yourself and what you want. Your position is not even about tolerance - it’s about forced acceptance.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marriage is not all benefits - it’s also restrictions on freedom and imposition of responsibilities. Gays are finding this out, even without the tax break:
And unfortunately, from at least this perspective, youngish heterosexuals (no need for child marriage - just consider the decade of a person’s 20s) are increasingly opting out of accepting marriage and its attendant costs.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Why are you so insistant on the idea that the government must (or should) continue incentivizing procreation through marriage? Worst case scenerio is that the government has to find another way to incentivize procreation; would that be so difficult?
BostonBarrister wrote:
As I have explained ad nauseum, it’s not just incentivizing procreation. It’s also incentiving the formation and survival of marriages because of the tendency to procreate. It’s a feedback loop. If you create traditional marriages, there will be procreation; but there will also be potentially procreative activity irrespective, some of which will actually be procreative. So you want to form traditional marriages around that, for separate reasons. Note the multiple goals. For some reason you like to ignore everything but incentivizing procreation.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What would happen if the government didnt incentivize marriage at all, do you think? Not really making a point there, just curious.[/quote]
It’s already been weakened through no-fault divorce and the slow erosion of social pressure to marry. It would just bring further weakness to the institution (precisely because there are a lot of costs involved - particularly from the male perspective…).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Anyway, them incentivizing different forms of marriage would still include incentivizing the traditional form. [/quote]
Not if being inclusive undercut the incentivizing effect for traditional marriage. That’s the entire point.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I can’t demonstrate that it will or won’t, and that is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that it will, for reasons other than homophobia, then its no different than a hiring manager asking you to prove that hiring a black employee will not negatively affect business (on the grounds that the only reason hiring a black employee would negatively affect business would be people acting out of racism – not because sexual preference is the same thing as race). Why should he take the risk?
BostonBarrister wrote:
Um, again, not racism. And a horrible analogy irrespective.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yes, its such a stretch to use compare someone making a decision based on fear of the results of a bigoted response with a decision being made based on fear of the results of a bigoted response.[/quote]
Racism has played a central role in American history; homophobia has not. Racism has an enduring economic impact on its victims; homophobia does not. Plenty of gays are impoverished, but most of them are racial minorities. Homosexuals have never been legally segregated or denied the right to vote. But apparently you want to them to have Constitutional protection from having their feelings hurt as the tangential effect of a governmental policy.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Suffice it to say that what you claim is irrelevant is the only relevant thing in the above paragraph. You can’t demonstrate a meaningful impingement of freedom. And in countless ways people need to endure ineligibility for government spending programs because the small amount of discrimination in each case is immaterial - just as any in this case would be, were it present. Every time the government spends money on a program it is discriminating against everyone who does not meet the eligibility standards. When it subsidizes farmers, it discriminates against non-farmers, and makes them all feel illegitimate… the horror.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
For what reason are people protected, by the government, against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc?[/quote]
Now that’s an interesting question - and you would do what to someone’s ability to refuse to interact with gays for religious reasons? Catholic charities refusing to allow gay couples to use their services to adopt children?
To answer your question, particular rights are protected by our system. The Constitution specifically protects people from discrimination based on race, based on the Civil War Amendments (13, 14 & 15). It protects an individual’s right to freely exercise his religion (1st Amendment). The USSC has made up a discrimination protection for gender - though not as strong as that for race. Those were the specific categories that either the people (religion, race) or the USSC (gender) have deemed important enough to require that they be considered by the government when it is enacting its general policies. Nowhere to be found: sexual orientation - or fatness, ugliness, age, freckles, or any other characteristic that might be disfavored or discriminated against by the majority.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But really, I’m not addressing any more questions of yours on this until you read the linked articles.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, I’ll try to get around to them over the next few days.[/quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask. I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
Its not about the government forcing anyone to do anything. Its about the government not recognizing one while refusing to recognize the other.
They are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice.
Except for that whole “not recgonizing it as legal” thing… minute detail, to you, I’m sure…
Isn’t part of your argument that allowing gays to marry will make straight marriages less socially legitmate? Why should the government worry about that?
Claiming that my stance is based only on feelings isn’t true, nor is repeating it going to make it true.
What do my feelings have to do with this? I’m not gay, I’m not interested in marrying another man. So, where are my feelings hurt here?
Its funny that most of the anti-gay marriage argument is so heavily based on feelings.
“But straight people wont feel as much pressure to get married. But straight people wont feel like they’re doing the right thing. But straight people wont feel comfortable with gay marriage. But straight people wont feel the same desire to conform to gender roles. Waaah.”
Does it have to be pointed out again that I’m not gay?
Right.
So your argument there is that… homosexuals havent suffered enough? Would you have a different outlook if homosexuals had been refused the right to vote, or had been enslaved, or had genocide attempted against them?
The impingement to freely choose which consenting adult they will marry.
Should the government then be allowed to determine who may or may not become a farmer?
Interesting question.
Thanks for avoiding the question. I’ll ask again: why? Dont tell me that “those were the specific categories deemed important enough”, and answer my question as to why those categories were deemed important enough.
Meh. Skimmed over them. One of these days I’ll probably pull out the relevant parts and respond to them.
Do you reckon maybe there’s a way for the government to give equal rights (actual equal rights) to gays on the issue while not undermining the original incentive? Maybe that should be the focus of our discussion.
So make all governmental benefits for people who RAISE children. Any idiot can stick their penis in a vagina and jiggle around a bit.
Are you suggesting that every de-facto relationship involves cheating? That’s a laugh.
My (exaggerated) suggestion is because people seem to think they can lay claim to the word “marriage”.
Read my post. There are more to “benefits” than government handouts - which I made mention of.
Moreover, we don’t want to just extend benefits and incentives to people who just “raise children” - we want to extend benefits and incentives to people who “raise children the right way”, that is, in a way that incentivizes the creators of said child to stick together to provide for that child.
[/quote]
Ah, the pushing of agendas: What, exactly, gives you right to claim knowledge of what the “right way” is? Why not more adults than simply the creators helping to raise and provide for the child? Why not more competent adoptive parents who can provide better for the child? Why not one parent who was involved in the creation along with another same sex parent who becomes involved in the raising/providing for?
Read: Because thunderbolt can’t be bothered to think for himself and needs other people to do his thinking for him…
This is a tidbit of ignorance that pops up surrounding polyamory a lot. See, simple folk who rely on society and books to tell them what to think cant imagine anything between “what they think” and “the end of the world”. Hence, they default to thinking that, outside of monogamy, every man will simply fuck everything that moves, forego all contraceptives and safe sex practices, impregnate without concern, and ignore responsibility to children he fathers. This is, of course, not true.
Right. So you end up with a high divorce rate and people cheating on each other all the time. Awesome.
I see. You trivialize it as “experiments for the sake of experiments” and BB trivializes it as “people getting upset about hurt feelings”.
Its not about experiments, its about equality. Novel concept, I know.
Ah, the pushing of agendas: What, exactly, gives you right to claim knowledge of what the “right way” is? Why not more adults than simply the creators helping to raise and provide for the child? Why not more competent adoptive parents who can provide better for the child? Why not one parent who was involved in the creation along with another same sex parent who becomes involved in the raising/providing for?[/quote]
Of course I am pushing an agenda - so are you. The idea that all consenting adults deserve the same social and legal privileges because they are all inherently equal is a radical proposal, in fact - and very much an agenda. You believe you have a “right way”, just the same as me or anyone else. Don’t indulge in the foolishness that you are “agenda-free” .
As to why not extend marriage to all consenting adults relationships - asked and answered.
Setting aside that your rhetorical “translation” doesn’t even make sense in the context of what I have posted, it’s a silly and desperate claim - here we have you, that has shown neither that you are particularly bright nor original on any of the subjects raised, trying to level a claim that I am parroting some groupthink line and I haven’t considered the issues myself.
Yeah, that’ll stick.
To reiterate - you’d need to come off as smarter to level the charge of “simple folk”, but that much is obvious to anyone reading your post.
To your point - the claim is false: there are plenty of degrees in between “what simple folk think” and the “end of the world”, but rhetorically, the point was demonstrated by the worst effects that are being mitigated.
But, then, that kind of talk ain’t nothin’ but reliance on book-learnin’ and such.
And, weirdly, you seem to suggest that marriage has never served to mitigate those excesses - and yet, many homosexuals claim that granting gay males monogamous marriage would help do exactly as I have suggested and would keep more men in stable relationships and slow down the “catting around” that leads to transmission of diseases the gay community are particularly susceptible to.
So, if marriage doesn’t serve the purpose of “civilizing men” and never has - what purpose does it serve?
To repeat: then what does marriage accomplish? What has it ever accomplished then?
So we need to get rid of marriage since it hasn’t worked to control those antisocial activities we wanted it to?
Horseshit. Even the gay community urging homosexual marriage disagrees with your claims.
[quote]I see. You trivialize it as “experiments for the sake of experiments” and BB trivializes it as “people getting upset about hurt feelings”.
Its not about experiments, its about equality. Novel concept, I know.[/quote]
The only thing being trivialized is an institution that has existed for longer than Western civilization. You have already admitted you have no problem with gutting it in its entirety as a public institution and all of its advantages in the name of sentimentalism. You want “equality” defined down where no relationship gets a privileged status - no thanks.
“Equality” would hinge on some level of sameness, and non-traditional relationships aren’t the same - they don’t offer the same level of benefits or role in our culture, and they never will. Therefore, they aren’t equal.
That doesn’t mean we should categorically damn those relationships, I certainly don’t - but there isn’t a reason to exalt them with the same privileges of a relationship that enjoys the history, cultural influence, and social advantages of binary heterosexual marriage.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The only thing being trivialized is an institution that has existed for longer than Western civilization.[/quote]
But you seem to define marriage as part of Western civilization. What proof do you have that marriage was ever the exclusive domain of heterosexual couple before the advent of most major religions?
But you seem to define marriage as part of Western civilization. What proof do you have that marriage was ever the exclusive domain of heterosexual couple before the advent of most major religions?[/quote]
Your question doesn’t make sense. Marriage is a part of Western civilization, and has had social purpose since the days of the ancient Greeks. A great deal of ancient marriage in the Western world was to help order the path of heirs, in addition to the other stuff - more of that important social ordering stuff.
But your question does not follow your statement - who cares whether marriage was the “exclusive domain of heterosexual couples before the advent of most major religions?”
First, I never suggested that claim (pre-history includes both monogamy and polygamy). Second, it isn’t particularly relevant to how we arrange marriage in the context of our own culture.