Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Well, maybe miracles DO happen. I think I actually agree with you for once! ;-) Edited by RickJB, : Typo.

quote:

---

I've said that marriage in its various forms, none of which includes homosexuals, goes back to the very beginning of recorded history, and has existed in every culture on earth.

---

And

quote:

---

That's not "tradition" as I understand it, that's arguing from universal practice. Tradition is culture-defined.

---

So, a fundemantal institution of society which has existed in every culture on earth isn't defined by those cultures, according to you, which is why it can't be defined at "tradition".Something that has always been done one way in all cultures isn't "tradition", even though you say that traditions are culturally-defined.Is that what you are saying?
Edited by schrafinator, : fixed quote boxes

Far as I know we are qualified for whatever rights we enjoy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The traditions the cultures bring to marriage are all different, but the fact of marriage itself is universal across all humanity in all cultures and times, and except for Nero's wanting to marry a male homosexual friend, which some Roman senator or other worthy dismissed as sheer foolishness, I know of no human group anywhere that has countenanced gay marriage. Again, "tradition" is normally understood to refer to the unique and arbitrary practices of a given social group, but if it is humanity-wide you are talking about something fundamental and universal, on the level of an instinct, if science terminology helps get it across.

You don't qualify for rights.You just have them.Thus the term human rights.If you have to qualify for them, they are privilages, not rights.

Good point. Marriage is a privilege, not a right, and you do have to qualify for it.

quote:

---

But I'm addressing only marriage as such, not a particular quality of marriage, and for marriage as such, heterosexual adults are qualified and homosexuals are not. That's just in the nature of reality.

---

quote:

---

So, what you are saying is that marriage is FUNDAMENTALLY about unassisted procreation?

​

...so much so that any other reason for getting married is completely irrelevant?

---

You might want to take your answer to me out of the quote box.I'm saying that heterosexuality, which includes the potential for "unassisted procreation," has always been the whole point of marriage. I didn't say that procreation was the only reason for marriage, I said that heterosexuality is the funamental qualification.

quote:

---

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, and you do have to qualify for it.

---

So, I see now that you now agree with me that you don't have to qualify for rights.

If you call marriage a right, then there are some rights that have to be qualified for. I'm easy.

The OP contains a list of over 1000 Federal Statutes that are based on the term "marriage". The GAO report can be found here.Why should we rewrite laws and our constitution for the sole perpuse of excluding Americans from the benefits, restrictions or services those statutes refer too not even on the basis of their sex, but rather on the sex of their chosen spouse?The list of Federal Statutes is just the tip of the iceberg as there are many more State and local statutes that are also based on the term "marriage".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The only unmarried individuals in Native American societies were those too young to be married, the widowed, the divorced, and berdaches, men who assumed many of the mannerisms, behavior patterns, and tasks of women. Yet sometimes berdaches married men. In such cases, the berdache fulfilled the traditional wifely role while the male partner provided game from hunting and performed other male tasks. Some Native American cultures also had “manly-hearted women” who hunted and assumed other male roles; often the manly-hearted woman married another woman who fulfilled female tasks.

---

quote:

---

Most North American Indians allowed polygyny, the marriage of one man to two or more women. Often these wives were sisters. But usually only wealthy or powerful men were able to support several wives. In some societies, such as those of the Great Plains, women far outnumbered men, because a large number of men were killed each year through bison hunting or warfare with other tribes. Men were expected to have several wives not only to maintain the population but also to lighten the wives’ crushing workload of tanning, sewing, beading, cooking, and packing camp. The wives could also share childrearing responsibilities. Polygyny was most common in the Northwest Coast region; in some parts of this region more than 20 percent of marriages were polygynous.

---

Native AmericansThe fact is that historically, same sex marriages in many diverse cultures, were considered normal. Among them, Greece, Rome, China, The Middle East, Japan, etc.Thus I think you can safely say that "same-sex" marriage is something universal, fundemental and traditional across cultures.The problem that you are having is that you want the constitution to "define" marriage based on your religion. Thus excluding those who do not believe as you do, and denying the undeniable historical presedence for same-sex marriages.

But you haven't done this.
why does a custody case for a child imply there needs to be different rules, the child will go with the most suitable parent/guardian regardless of sex/sexuality

It gets very tiresome having words put in one's mouth. I have NOT argued gay marriage from my religion. I am arguing only from what I know of history and I never heard of same sex marriages except the one example of Nero's little act of debauchery which was criticized by a Roman leader.Polygyny is simply one of the forms of marriage, contradicting nothing I said, so there was no need to mention it. You offer no evidence of this, but if it is so, I abandon the whole argument.It does now become a matter of God's having abandoned America to destruction, and since that is obviously His will, let it be I say.

you'd love seattle...sorry OT... carry on...