Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

So it is about penis in vagina sex. Glad we cleared that up. I'd hate for marriage to be confused with something as abstract as love.Enjoy.

I haven't mentioned the religious definition of marriage for some pages now, I'm talking about the universal social definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with my feelings about it or anybody's feelings about it, it's an institution whose roots are very ancient and cross cultural, it's an objective thing.Gay marriage is a travesty. If you want to provide for the unrelated "parent" to have legal responsibility for the child you'll have to do it some other way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me that everybody here has a sort of block to thinking objectively about a social institution and can only think emotively.

What on earth can it mean to say that "marriage is an objective social institution" ? Or at least that can help you. It is objectively true that marriage is a social institution and in a secular state the secular institution of marriage as a legal institution should serve the secular needs of society.And in the US that is the way that it is supposed to be. The courts are correct to disregard arguments that do not address those issues.Again, if you want religious marriage with religious rules go to your church. Your church can refuse a church wedding to anyone they disapprove of for whatever reasons seem good to them. And that is the way it should be, too.

quote:

---

Seems to me that everybody here has a sort of block to thinking objectively about a social institution and can only think emotively.

---

Then produce an objectively demonstrable, rational argument against gay marriage.

Given that its a social institution, then society gets to define it.Society has spoken. Gay people are allowed to marry now.Deal with it.

Actually it isn't society that has spoken, it's the PC courts that have overruled the voice of the people in state after state that have spoken. I already wrote many pages ago (in Message 1103) congratulating the devil on his victory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ahem:

So? What I said was true, the courts have overruled the vote of the people in state after state.

Just like segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.When will it finally get through your psychological barriers that you can not vote to take away a person's constitutional rights?

That's not how marriage is defined. We don't define marriage as a partnership for procreation. We don't force heterosexual couples to prove their fecundity before their nuptuals. It isn't about reproduction. Obviously, people reproduce just fine outside of marriages.

Not at all like miscegenation laws, that's just the usual propaganda smear tactic. See [Msg=1112] where the Sixth Distict Circuit Court gave this highly intelligent and sane opinion on gay marriage: " ...a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So more people think it should be valid than don't.That is society speaking. That is society redefining a social institution. How else would you prevent the majority from discriminating against a minority?If it was good enough for slavery then its good enough for gay marriage.

You didn't read very carefully. I said ALSO with reproduction in mind but my main definition of what qualifies a couple for marriage has always been simply the complementary difference between the sexes. Homosexuals do not qualify for marriage by any conceivable standard.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Homosexuality is not a legitimate minority. We do not grant special rights to aberrant groups.