To a racist it was, and there were enough racists around to enshrine their prejudice in law. I am just using it as an example against the “everyone is free…” argument.
Would you want to marry someone who had no sexual attraction towards you and who fancied people of their own sex? What sort of marriage would that be for you? Do you really want a partner who will never love you and who can never love you? Why would you inflict that on your fellow heterosexuals just so homosexuals can enter into a heterosexual marriage.
There is no such ban currently in place in civil law. A paraplegic may legally get married.
rossum
The question itself was a red herring, and you know it.
I didn’t write the laws of nature. No one is forcing homosexuals to marry heterosexuals. What people are saying is that marriage reflects the reality that it is the coupling of males and females produce children
and that the relations between males and females are indeed unique. The coupling of males and females is fundamentally and, I am sorry, inarguably different than the coupling of females with other females and males with other males, and all the romantic support grouptalk in the world doesn’t change that.
You have to have friends of the opposite sex. You have to get it that male-female relations are fundamentally different than female-female and male-male relations. This is not about a pure matter of emotions and if this country were not so weird about basic human needs, it would not be about buying health insurance, either. Marriage is about that relationship by which the species goes on. There is a reason to particularly value that relationship in all its forms, whether you like it or not. Yet instead of valuing that relationship, the trend now is to reduce it to its most eroded state and question what is unique about it!
**You may as well say that a house is the same as a ship because not all ships are seaworthy. The ships have started going aground like there is no tomorrow, people are becoming afraid to set sail at all, and instead of questioning whether something needs to change at the shipyard, the fundamental concept of what it means to be a “ship” is questioned!
Why have ships at all? Why can’t we catch all our fish from the dock? And hey, since not all ships can float, why can’t I claim my oceanfront house is a ship and take the tax advantages? Oh, and I think waterfront homeowners should get to be called “captain”, too! I deserve that title! And why should the house have to be near the water, for that matter?
The arguments have gotten that ridiculous!**
This would be a lot less serious if we could survive without a seaworthy fleet. We can’t!!
Heterosexual relations are needed to produce children, and no sexual relations at all between the caretakers are required to raise them. Homosexual sex is not necessary, but heterosexual sex is. Yet homosexuals, I am sorry, covet the status and are jealous to get the status, that goes with being married even though they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to making a practical case that homosexual and heterosexual relations are equivalent. (Yes, the emotional relationship is fundamentally different, too, but considering that there is actually argument over the obvious physical differences, it is pointless to argue that issue.)
Make a case that adults living as a household often need and by every right ought to have certain priveleges that are now extended only to married couples. Fine. Just do not fill the world with hot air in order to make the ridiculous case that what exists between a man and a woman can be duplicated by what exists between two men or two women. It can’t. There is a true difference between homosexual and heterosexual, it is not remotely a trivial difference, and that is reality.
