Reply to In which ancient societies (other than Greece) was homosexuality accepted?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "In which ancient societies (other than Greece) was homosexuality accepted?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]
In regards to your other questions.  No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means.  There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level.  I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings.  The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other.  It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from.  The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.  [/quote]

Many same sex couples are raising children. In many cases, these children have a biological connection to one of the parents. The lack of same-sex marriage rights in most states presents a hurdle to those families. I cannot read the above paragraph and not wonder why you would not support same-sex marriage as a means of protecting the rights of same-sex parents. Do you not see the irony in your support of a hetrosexual marriage which does not involve children and your opposition to a same-sex marriage that does involve raising children? It would seem to me that if your concern is social and legal recognition of unions from which children can result, you absolutely have to support same-sex marriage.
[/quote]

As usual, Jeff is awesome.

PP, you are twisting yourself in knots trying to justify marriage as a social construct designed solely to protect children, while at the same igoring the fact that many gay families include children and the fact that many straight marriages never involve children.

Your premise is frankly absurd. [b]Marriage today is very much about officially recognizing a couple's affection for each other, at least in most Western countries. It also imparts a host of legal and economic benefits, the vast majority of which accrue only to the two partners. Children actually have significant legal protections that don't rely at all on the marital status of their parents[/b].

You're simply reaching, PP. And you're wrong. And I'm pretty sure you know it. Gay marriage just makes you feel "ooky" and you want to find a rational reason for opposing it. There is none. Own your discomfort, realize it's stupid, and get over it.[/quote]

Yes you're right.  Marriage today has over the past four decades turned into being more about officially recognizing a couple's affection for each other, and under this definition there would be very little if any reason to deny the same benefit to same sex couples.   If you took the time to read through previous posts, you would realize that my discomfort, as well as I assume many other's  is that this is a radical shift from what the purpose of marriage has been throughout all societies in history.   I personally think the shift of marriage being more centered on pleasure, versus its more traditional role of binding families together has weakened it as an institution.  My point being is that same sex marriage represents a  VERY radical shift on the meaning of marriage, an institution that has been the bed rock of civilization for thousands of years, and think of me what you will, but the notion makes me very apprehensive.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics