Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

No, I'll say it again: The reason that marriage has been confined to heterosexuals for all of history across all cultures can only be because men and women together make babies. Whether some for particular reasons can't make babies is irrelevant. The principle is that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby and homosexuals do not have that capacity in the very nature of their being of the same sex. You are all trying to make something against marriage of heterosexuals out of mere incidentals, individual conditions that prevent fertility. But I'll say it again: the reason for marriage being for heterosexuals is obviously that they fit together in such a way that makes procreation possible.Would you like to try to come up with a different explanation for why marriage has always historically and crossculturally been the uniting of heterosexuals?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, I'll say it again: The reason that marriage has been confined to heterosexuals for all of history across all cultures can only be because men and women together make babies.

---

I don't think your guesses about the purpose of marriage in other cultures is really relevant. Surely the primary point must be the nature of marriage in the culture considering the question.

quote:

---

Whether some for particular reasons can't make babies is irrelevant.

---

Yes, the potential to have children is NOT a relevant factor in modern culture.

quote:

---

You are all trying to make something against marriage of heterosexuals out of mere incidentals, individual conditions that prevent fertility.

---

Well that's what you said. You never pointed to some vague abstract principle with little relevance to modern views of marriage. You made fertility the point clear and simple (and I'll note that fertility IS a major point when production of children is the primary purpose of marriage - the fact that it isn't a legal requirement in modern societies is just one more reason to consider it unimportant to the current debate).

quote:

---

But I'll say it again: the reason for marriage being for heterosexuals is obviously that they fit together in such a way that makes procreation possible

---

THat's not how I'd put it. But the question remains, how is this relevant to the debate ? History and other cultures are all very well but how do they apply ? We need a very solid reason for perpetuating an injustice and the idea that we should blindly copy rules from the past without understanding if they are even relevant to the current situation is hardly thatl.

Except homosexual unions, including marriage, have a long trail across history and across culture in this species.Did you miss Dr. A's Message 465 or did you just ignore it?Here is his cite again: History of same-sex unions.No more of your crap about "marriage has always historically and crossculturally been the uniting of heterosexual" because we know for a fact it has not, OK?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The "crap" is in any claim that actual same-sex MARRIAGES as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages existed except as very very rare aberrations. The article blurs a whole bunch of stuff together in such a way that it's hard to know what they are claiming. Same-sex UNIONS are not MARRIAGES. Informal same sex unions have always existed and nobody is objecting to them, and the existence of elaborate rituals also does not make a marriage in the usual sense. We know there are lifelong homosexual partnerships and that's basically all the article is describing. That has nothing to do with granting FORMAL LEGAL MARRIAGE to homosexuals. If you would like to wade through that article and make a case for whatever ACTUAL MARRIAGES may be documented in the same sense as heterosexual marriages, instead of leaving it all blurry and vague implying more than actually ever existed and falsely implying that permanent unions are somehow the same thing, please do so. I'm not going to do that work. Far as I can tell it's all a bunch of politically correct machinations to pretend something existed that never did. Homosexual relationships have always existed, but nevertheless homosexuality has always been marginalized across cultures, which has been my argument, and nothing in that article shows otherwise, and whatever "marriages" existed are mostly NOT true marriages but something else. See if you can prove otherwise from that odd document.

Translation:"... the existence of elaborate rituals also does not make a marriage in my religiously twisted sense." Translation:"Reality hurts. I don't want to see it." Translation:"Oh the reality! It burns! It burns! Take it away!"

No need to get uppity, I asked to be corrected if wrong. I get you so God's law said it was wrong...mankind went a different way. Jesus corrected the misinterpretation that was received from reading the very same scripture. Got it. And Again, if you cannot defend your original argument against others arguments without relying on this, you are relying on the Bible for your back up arguments, which makes your main argument also rest on the Bible. Please show your work...show me the general damage to society CAUSED by same sex marriage. I expect you to trot out Nero, but remember there were a lot more issues with his rule than simply that. So, explain to me what occurred, how what occurred created a negative response throughout society and how this then had an adverse affect on the whole of society. No, they brought up objections which you required the Bible to answer. Such as Jazzns same attempt as mine to get you to realize that you do not even argue for a HISTORICAL version of marriage because you would be advocating polygamy. There is the problem, you choose to argue a BIBLICAL reason, not a HISTORICAL one. We are trying to point out to you that if we go with the historical definition, there is far more history in this world of polygamy, then not polygamy. So, stop saying you are against gay marriage for historical reasons because if you were, then you would be for polygamy. Do you get it now? Read the link I posted...or do some research on your own. It was allowed as marriage for most of history (especially your 6,000 year old Earth), although wealth was an important part. Mainly because you have more mouths to feed. No, you claimed to be against Same Sex Marriage because of the HISTORY of marriage and its TRADITION of being just one man and one woman. I am showing you that you are not arguing for the HISTORICAL definition of marriage, but rather the one that the Christian Church has defined for everyone else. It is not your choice to define words, and definitions change along with society. Soon, marriage will mean two consenting adults joining their lives through the legal channels and love.If you want to claim your argument is from the historical perspective, you should be clambering for polygamous rights...instead, you only rage against the homosexual community wanting to be treated equal. In other words, HISTORY does not defend your viewpoint, which shows that all you have to stand on is a religious argument, which should have no place in our legislation....And....Boom, goes the dynamite. Be very careful, this last statement comes super close to revealing your true argument that tries to use your own religion to turn the homosexual community into second class citizens...although, I suspect you honestly know that it is religious reasoning that forms your opinions on this issue....after all you have thrown the term God out a lot in this thread.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

If someone discriminated against black people, and when asked why explained "because they have dark skin", then that names the criterion he's using to discriminate against them, but it's hardly a reason for doing so.In the same way, by using the criterion of whether a couple's genitals fit together in such-and-such a way, you have a criterion for discriminating against gay couples. But not a reason.

Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society. It is impossible to tell from that article if any of the unions being discussed are of the latter sort and they may not be. Nobody is objecting to any other kind.

It is absurd to call an ancient institution like marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it.

And it is likewise absurd to call an acient institution like slavery discrimination against those sub-human africans.Or, it was, until we got to changed that bigotry. And now we get to change another bigotry. And you christians can no longer do a damn thing about it.

I'd just remind you that it was Christians who originally opposed slavery and who ultimately succeeded against the ancient practice.To compare marriage to slavery is of course an absurdity in itself but that doesn't seem to faze you.However you are quite right that you are going to "change another bigotry" according to your twisted definition and Christians aren't going to have anything to say about it. You can probably even get us arrested for "hate speech" for our opinions. Have at it.

In the US you will not be arrested for hate speech unless somehow Biblical Christians gain the power they used to have.

And yet some of the greatest men of God were still allowed to do so. The father of the Hebrews himself had a family out of wedlock and it did not disqualify him one iota from receiving the covenant. First you say it wasn't approved of, then you say that Christ changed it. Which is it?Where exactly does Christ do this changing that you talk about?Finally, why can't I "traditionally" obtain a wife by means of raping an unwed women or by pillaging? These were either rules given by god for dealing with rape or actions ordained by god to take care of unruly neighbors. What can be more traditional than instructions straight from the mouth of god?

What Christ CHANGED was their casual acceptance of the sin of polygamy, by emphasizing God's ordinance, not GOD'S ORDINANCE itself. Sheesh.

They were not just allowed to continue polygamy, according to the Bible God even commanded it.When Hagar left Abe acauseof Sara got in her face and dissed her, God stopped her and commanded she return to Abe.