Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Reality is gay marriage is becoming legal in more and more places. If you can't or won't explain your position than maybe your position isn't all that solid?


Hehe. Typical MEM: 'the majority is on my side, so everything you say is invalid.'

You're already aware of my position. If you weren't, you'd feel more inclined to answer the question instead of avoiding analysis of the contemporary mindset that attracts homosexuals to the concept of matrimony regardless of the fact that affection doesn't necessitate marriage.

This really isn't that difficult, but I'll make it a lot simpler for you: If marriage and affection aren't interdependent, but homosexual couples seek to get married as a matter of course anyway, then what does that say about you--and homosexuals in general--assigning so much importance to the ritual?

Clearly, if my position isn't all that solid, then the integrity of your own position won't be jeopardized by considering the question.

 Quote:
I'm curious how you apply that to heterosexuals vs gay couples.


The morality that spawned marriage does not correspond with sexually indiscriminate couplings. The process of marrying fails to meet its intended goal of family building mergers if the format doesn't satisfy the man-woman parameters. Marriage has no purpose otherwise.

I go at length about it in this thread.

 Originally Posted By: Pariah
...Their dubious campaign slogan of "two consenting adults" obviously sounds good, but it's marvelously tangent from the point of "one man, one woman". Why stop at two? Why consenting? Why adults? Why human?

Unlike the traditional model for the institution of marriage, their parameters for the ritual fail to establish a social objective. Generally, and overwhelmingly, one man and one woman will always trend growth, families, and population stability. A same-sex coupling will not trend any of those things without a third party--which defeats the purpose entirely. As such, the social objective of a homosexual coupling could not possibly be families. The only other reason is relationships, but that has nothing to do with the state or the institution of marriage. One could argue that more cohesive and loving relationships are good for society in general, but it's not a government responsibility to reinforce a relationship.

So by all accounts, there really is no reason to limit the proposition to "two consenting adults". And as the mentality of that slogan is reinforced in our society, people will begin to understand how squishy and meaningless it is, and they will simply move on to other protocols for marriage and relationships. Could be polygamy, could be pedophilia, could be bestiality. With a phrase so lacking in integrity on a political or philosophical basis, the sky's the limit.


If marriage existed solely as an affectionate bond, then why do you think its institution would involve the state?

Last edited by Pariah; 2013-12-28 1:02 PM.