To make this easier, here is what I think you are referring to:
If I understand your question correctly, yes.
**
ArchiveGuy, I think me recent posts may answer your questions. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification on any point.
You find a historical quote insulting. That is simply bizarre. What else is there to say?
No, you’re going to have to provide a cite that proves homosexuals have only recently evolved, otherwise they have to have been part of human society and families and tribes.
I think that the usage of the word dilutes the special relationship that the word connotes. I am particularly concerned for those growing up years from now. The desire of most on the pro-SSM debate is to enshrine the relationship, if you will, by association with normal marriage. They wish to create a societal construct in which SSM and HM are is equal as two flavors of ice cream. I think that denies the roles of both biology and tradition. In fact, the tradition is due to biology. That cannot, and should not, be hand waved away.
Apologies that I didn’t make it clear enough that that’s the question I meant! But yes, that was the one.
Based on your answer, let me pose you a hypothetical. Imagine an alternate universe America, where everything has occurred the same (generally speaking) except for the fact that gay marriage has been part of the country from the beginning; the tradition of marriage in this alternate America has included gay marriage in it from the start. Judging by the factors I think you seem to value in traditions, this alternate marriage tradition has been around the same amount of time, and so would have the same value from that particular point. However, because the tradition is more inclusive and covers a wider range of people, the amount of people supporting it is - if not vastly - bigger, and so I would say provides more value towards the overall tradition.
Would you agree that this alternate tradition, lasting for the same amount of time but with wider support, is partially superior in value, and at least not inferior?
No. You made the claim. A rather extraordinary one, in fact. So it falls to you. But I am happy to simply ignore your silly claim. It’s up to you.
And since I’ve already asked you to not lie, may I ask you now to go against your nature and try to not mischaracterize what I’ve asked of you. Sheeze, it was your own claim. Just go back and read it. Then provide a cite for the specific portion I requested.
There are many fallacies in the above paragraph. First, that gay families having children lack clear guidelines. That gay people would rather have straight children… that hasn’t been my experience. I think they are like any parents-- they just want their kids to be healthy and happy. It’s easier to be straight because of society’s bigotry, but I have never heard a gay person express that they thought that their lives were less than a full human experience. What a terrible sentiment to put in people’s mouths. And lastly, it’s false that reproduction necessarily leads to a fuller human experience. It provides a different human experience, but by no means is that necessary to a full human experience. That is plainly your personal bias but I don’t think it holds up under objective scrutiny. I’m sure there are many childless people who would disagree vehemently with your sentiment. Who are you to say their lives are less a full human experience?
No, it’s not a deviation from the norm. Being gay IS NORMAL. It occurs in nature, doesn’t it? Yes, fewer people are gay than are straight, and many people have been socially conditioned to think being gay is somehow deviant, but that does not make being gay inherently any less normal.
Wow, what an utterly ridiculous and specious comparison. Maybe you’re trying to be funny here, but your flippant answer indicates that you lack compassion for the struggles of gay people in America. Liking The Shield or Entourage is a taste issue. Being a bigoted homophobe bent on denying gays their legal rights is repulsive. Why would you want to associate with and further the political agenda of people who are full of hate and fear, and want to deny rights to law-abiding citizens?
Marriage should be strictly a religious term. All “marriages” should be civil unions and anyone who wants one should be allowed to have it. End of story.
ETA: are you seriously arguing that gays haven’t historically been part of human communities? A stunningly ignorant comment. Homosexuality has been much more widely accepted in other cultures, historically… the Greeks. The Romans. Do a little research. levdrakon is NOT making an extraordinary claim.
Interesting. I don’t know. But I can see it going either way. (No pun intended.) Obviously, it might be the case that marriage enjoys greater support, inasmuch as greater numbers may translate to “greater support”. I say that because broad appeal doesn’t necessarily equate to depth of appeal.
One thing that I would find lacking in your hypothetical scenario is the recognition of the natural relationship between man and woman. If that were the case, I could see young children growing up in a more confusing atmosphere, as far as sexual development.
I think I was a little off before in my defense; magellan01 does seem to hold some odd views about homosexuality. I’m still reluctant to attribute to him any real animus, but, yeah, there is some distasteful element of “Straight > Gay” there, even if only to a very small degree; his objection to SSM may not have been solely grounded in pure semantic nitpicking as I thought.
Oh well. Carry on…
You’re kidding, right? Let’s try this: Why did you offer that cite?
Which natural relationship do you mean? The ability to procreate?
Easy, they won’t be issue a Marriage License.
Now, gays can continue to attempt to appropriate the word, and continue to anger the majority. Or they can choose some other term, which would come with all the same rights, and show that they are reasonable and respectful of traditional marriage. I really think this would be the best course of action toward ending bigotry.
Evidently, the idea of doing this is beyond the capabilities of more than the militant SSM camp.
Just peruse this for a start. You will see that homosexuality has been an accepted part of many cultures historically and around the world.
Yes, the coming together of man and woman. The natural desire humans, like all other animals have, to procreate and see that their genes are past on.
Animals also have a natural inclination towards homosexuality. I think animals have a natural inclination to fuck, period.
The first is created by accident. When it happens we make the best of the situation. The latter would mean that we are recognizing a less ideal situation and equating it with what we recognize as the ideal, this diluting what the word represents. I don’t see why society should knowingly be complicit in that.
I don’t see why the alternate tradition would be lacking in that recognition. If you’re suggesting that younger kids might be confused as to how exactly babies come about, well, younger kids are generally confused about that one here and now. Besides which, I don’t think a recognition of marriage necessarily implies anything about recognition of procreation ability.
Plus not all humans have that particular desire, or have it to a stronger or lesser extent, but that’s picking nits. I would say that no longer is it so much the coming together of man and woman, but of sperm and egg, thanks to recent techology, but that is a recent development.
But in essence my general point was that, given certain caveats, it’s quite possible that the alternate America has a more valuable tradition?
Excellent point,** magellan01**. That’s why I don’t think we should let old people get married. They can’t conceive naturally and this less than ideal situation shouldn’t be encouraged.
I had no idea that the way to end bigotry was to give in to it.
Here’s what will really happen. We’ll call our relationships “marriage”. We’ll say we’re “married”. And within the course of 5 or 10 years, everyone will call it marriage and wonder why people were so damn hateful once.
Your kind is going the way of the dodo. You can say you’re not a bigot because you promote gay rights except in the matter of marriage. And I can say you’re still a bigot, just in a lesser degree than someone like Fred Phelps.