Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[rossum]

Again the discussion is of MARRIAGE, not of the particular situation of a particular marriage.

Then we need to define MARRIAGE. Does MARRIAGE allow eight wives (King David), four wives (Muslims) or one wife (Sikhs)? Does MARRIAGE allow divorce (civil law) or not (Catholics). Does MARRIAGE allow same sex couples (Netherlands, California) or not (Texas, Italy).

Your error is to think that there is only one MARRIAGE when in fact there are many different versions of marriage. Different versions of marriage have different rules, just as different US states have different ages for marriages, and allow different degrees of relationship.

So fertility is relevant to the institution of marriage but it is not essential to every marriage.

So, since fertility is not a requirement for every marriage, what is your reason for not allowing same-sex marriages? Since a minority of people are homosexual, then same-sex marriages will always be a minority of marriages.

You admit that not all relationships are marriage. Touche’ You are right and same sex relationships fall right into that category.

Why do they not fall into that category? In California, same sex marriages do fall into the category of legal civil marriage. The same was true, briefly, in Utah. There are places where there are legal same-sex civil marriages. How are those marriages not marriages?

BTW I’ve been meaning to ask. You claim to be a Buddhist but as I understand it, sodomy is prohibited by your faith and specifically anal intercourse. Why are you such an advocate for societal recognition of a practice your faith prohibits?

Buddhism has the same conservative/liberal split as Christianity. You will not be surprised to learn that I am on the liberal side. There are different interpretations of the moral rules by different people.

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

rossum you think you are so clever and that you can simultaneously take two opposite positions and sound credible. It’s not working.

Again the discussion is of MARRIAGE, not of the particular situation of a particular marriage. The institution of marriage was and is based on its function as a building block for society through the birth and raising of children. So fertility is relevant to the institution of marriage but it is not essential to every marriage. Quit creating strawmen with your individual fertility test theory.

You admit that not all relationships are marriage. Touche’ You are right and same sex relationships fall right into that category.

Society has no vested interest in promoting an unhealthy, non-procreative and statistically unstable relationship. How is SOCIETY benefitting by Joe and Bob calling themselves married? What homosexualists cannot seem to grasp is that their sexual practices have zero SOCIETAL benefit. They may give you transitory pleasure (and an array of health problems) but SOCIETY does not benefit by someone’s non-procreative and unhealthy sex practices.

Again quit looking at the issue through your own self interest. Same sex “marriage” might be a financial benefit to the individuals but it does not benefit society. The purpose of state support of various institutions such as marriage is that it was deemed society benefits, not that it makes a few individuals happy.

BTW I’ve been meaning to ask. You claim to be a Buddhist but as I understand it, sodomy is prohibited by your faith and specifically anal intercourse. Why are you such an advocate for societal recognition of a practice your faith prohibits?

Lisa

rossum argues the pursuit of happiness angle (meaning his), as though gay “marriage” is a matter of state interest. LOL.

In fact, in referring to homosexual sex the dear leader of Buddhists Dalai Lama in plain talk said “wrong hole.”
,

 

[LisaA]

Then we need to define MARRIAGE. Does MARRIAGE allow eight wives (King David), four wives (Muslims) or one wife (Sikhs)? Does MARRIAGE allow divorce (civil law) or not (Catholics). Does MARRIAGE allow same sex couples (Netherlands, California) or not (Texas, Italy).

Your error is to think that there is only one MARRIAGE when in fact there are many different versions of marriage. Different versions of marriage have different rules, just as different US states have different ages for marriages, and allow different degrees of relationship.

So, since fertility is not a requirement for every marriage, what is your reason for not allowing same-sex marriages? Since a minority of people are homosexual, then same-sex marriages will always be a minority of marriages.

Why do they not fall into that category? In California, same sex marriages do fall into the category of legal civil marriage. The same was true, briefly, in Utah. There are places where there are legal same-sex civil marriages. How are those marriages not marriages?

Buddhism has the same conservative/liberal split as Christianity. You will not be surprised to learn that I am on the liberal side. There are different interpretations of the moral rules by different people.

rossum

rossum the horse is dead, quit beating him. Marriage is supported by society because of the inherent and unique qualities of promoting a societal good–society’s future and promoting prosperity and stability. Same sex relationships may promote prosperity, depending upon the industriousness and productivity of the parties but it can never contribute to society’s future through bearing and raising future generations.

As to your new Red Herrings (will the net ever be empty) plural marriage in the era of King David is hardly relevant. Again, what contributes to prosperity and stability of society? Multiple wives for one male, leaving many males without spouses is a well known recipe for chaos, turmoil and sexual jealousy. I suspect you haven’t read much about what happened to King David’s family have you? I don’t think plural marriage is a societal benefit and thus society has no more vested interest in promoting plural marriage than same sex marriage.

One more time, society should promote those institutions and societal structures that lead to stability, prosperity and a future for society. Society has NO vested interest in state sanction for sodomy does it? Through the millenia, all evidence points to societies with stable two parent homes as being the most positive force for society. Once this structure is damaged through divorce, non formed families (single motherhood), or other social experiments, society suffers. We don’t need a crystal ball to see that promoting other relationships that do not even have POTENTIAL to provide society’s needs is not going to improve the situation already crumbling under previous theories like no fault divorce or radical feminism.

And I do not deny that some states have different rules. That doesn’t mean that the state that allows same sex marriage is promoting a social good, it may mean anything from judicial fiat to executive order to the will of the people was bent toward this format for human relationships.

And no I am not surprised by your admission of your liberal perspective. It’s quite obvious along with the Leftist focus on self interest and self indulgence which is not freeing but becomes a prison of the lies.

So one more time, society benefits by state promotion of sodomy how?

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

rossum argues the pursuit of happiness angle (meaning his), as though gay “marriage” is a matter of state interest. LOL.

In fact, in referring to homosexual sex the dear leader of Buddhists Dalai Lama in plain talk said “wrong hole.”
,

 

[rossum]

Marriage is supported by society because of the inherent and unique qualities of promoting a societal good–society’s future and promoting prosperity and stability. Same sex relationships may promote prosperity, depending upon the industriousness and productivity of the parties but it can never contribute to society’s future through bearing and raising future generations.

Nor can some opposite sex marriages, the infertile ones. Are you going to treat all citizens equally (and allow same-sex civil marriage) or are you going to require infertile husbands/wives to divorce their spouses?

If fertility is essential, then some existing marriages fail the test. If fertility is not essential then same sex marriages are allowable.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

Nor can some opposite sex marriages, the infertile ones. Are you going to treat all citizens equally (and allow same-sex civil marriage) or are you going to require infertile husbands/wives to divorce their spouses?

If fertility is essential, then some existing marriages fail the test. If fertility is not essential then same sex marriages are allowable.

rossum

rossum, dismount. The horse is dead. This is the view from 30,000 feet looking at society and marriage, not at individual marriages. You persist in repeating the same false choice of demanding that every individual case have perfection or the entire concept is destroyed. Argumentum ad absurdum…

Society supports marriage as an institution because of certain unique societal benefits. MARRIAGE as an institution, not every individual marriage on an individual basis. Society supports other institutions because of societal benefits, public schools perhaps would be a good analogy here. There is a perceived societal benefit of public schools in the collective even if individual schools do a poor job of educating the children.

Once more, what POSSIBLE societal benefit exists from state sponsored sodomy? Again in the collective and not in the individual case,

???

Lisa

 

[Lochias]

“Gay marriage” is nothing but a government-sanctioned emotional choice.

We need not support it. It is useless, sinful, harmful, and antithetical to human life.

It needs to be made illegal, forever.

 

[rossum]

This is the view from 30,000 feet looking at society and marriage, not at individual marriages.

So, you are missing a lot of necessary detail by looking for too far away. We are only discussing a subset of marriages, and you appear not to be able to distinguish that subset from the distance you are looking. Civil marriages in Utah are the subset we are looking at. Not all marriages everywhere (which also includes some same-sex marriages).

You persist in repeating the same false choice of demanding that every individual case have perfection or the entire concept is destroyed.

You have misunderstood my point, my apologies for not explaining it more clearly. Present opposite-sex marriages in Utah include some opposite-sex marriages which do not allow procreation for various reasons. Hence it is incorrect for you to argue that same-sex marriages should not be allowed because they do not allow procreation. There are already valid marriages, which you accept, that do not allow procreation – presumably what you call imperfect marriages. Since you already accept some imperfect, non-procreative, marriages as valid then what are your reasons for not accepting other imperfect non-procreative marriages as legally valid? You have to find a reason other than non-procreation.

Once more, what POSSIBLE societal benefit exists from state sponsored sodomy?

Two points. First, you do know that the USSC has struck down anti-sodomy laws for both heterosexuals and homosexuals? Second, why do you object to two women getting married, there is no possibility of sodomy there, even less than in an opposite-sex marriage.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

So, you are missing a lot of necessary detail by looking for too far away. We are only discussing a subset of marriages, and you appear not to be able to distinguish that subset from the distance you are looking. Civil marriages in Utah are the subset we are looking at. Not all marriages everywhere (which also includes some same-sex marriages).

You have misunderstood my point, my apologies for not explaining it more clearly. Present opposite-sex marriages in Utah include some opposite-sex marriages which do not allow procreation for various reasons. Hence it is incorrect for you to argue that same-sex marriages should not be allowed because they do not allow procreation. There are already valid marriages, which you accept, that do not allow procreation – presumably what you call imperfect marriages. Since you already accept some imperfect, non-procreative, marriages as valid then what are your reasons for not accepting other imperfect non-procreative marriages as legally valid? You have to find a reason other than non-procreation.

Two points. First, you do know that the USSC has struck down anti-sodomy laws for both heterosexuals and homosexuals? Second, why do you object to two women getting married, there is no possibility of sodomy there, even less than in an opposite-sex marriage.

rossum

Honestly will you stop? I do not misunderstand, I am frustrated by your continuing to repeat the same arguments that were never advanced in the first place.

For about the 10th time, while the thread refers directly to a specific case in Utah, the point being debated was the justification for allowing same sex couples to receive the societal benefits of marriage, on the basis that these relationships are claimed to be equivalent to opposite sex marriage.

Disputed: Same sex relationships are equivalent to opposite sex marriage

They are not, based on biology alone. Same sex “marriage” is a new scheme based on the self interest of a particularly vocal minority group. In addition to basic biological differences, there is no tradition or society in this country’s history, or barring a few nutty Emperors in Ancient Rome, any country’s tradition that same sex couples can be married.

Disputed: Same sex “marriages” will benefit society sufficiently to justify their elevation to equivalence with opposite sex marriage.

Same sex marriage can never, by definition, create as much of a societal benefit because they cannot in any way produce future members of that society.

Further same sex relationships are unhealthy, abnormal, disordered, with a far higher incidence of mental and physical problems from substance abuse to suicide to STDs (gays) to obesity (Lesbians). Society does not make a practice of supporting, or financing self destructive behavior. In fact such behavior is taxed, fined, and socially discouraged…note anti-smoking laws for example.

No one has suggested outlawing sodomy. In fact the point is to keep your private life private, do not ask society to recognize, celebrate or finance it. I guess a few Red Herrings left in the net!

That individual opposite sex marriage do not always result in children is irrelevant to the support for the institution of marriage. On an overall societal basis, marriage does result in children. Further society has a vested interest not only in perpetuating itself but in stability and prosperity for its citizens. Traditional man/woman marriage provides these benefits to a higher degree than other social structures. Thus the institution deserves special consideration not given to other human relationships.

Further you do not need to be “married” to engage in homosexual sex, live together, visit each other in the hospital, obtain partner benefits, or leave property to each other.

Homosexualists are asking for recognition, financial support, legal support, and special rights based on______________________?

I’m still waiting for the WIFM, necessary whenever trying to convince someone of something. So far not a whiff of the WIFM in your arguments.

Lisa
PS Horse still dead, starting to stink

 

[tskrobacz]

huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/utah-same-sex-marriage_n_4482703.html

This could be the case that finally ends the debate over whether gay people are entitled to the same right to marry as straight people. In my opinion, this is an example of the court functioning as it was intended. Even in a state so deeply under the finger of a religious organization as Utah, this judge had the intestinal fortitude to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. I pray to God that this case is appealed to SCOTUS and upheld, bringing an end to codified anti-gay discrimination.

You can’t claim you are Catholic and argue for the right for gay people to marry. Is it really ok for parents to instruct their children that you can marry whoever you want, male or female when your grow up? Is it also ok that the State gets involved in families as all “gay families” have at minimum 3 adults involved if there are children. The court would be functioning as intended if it upheld the traditional definition of marriage and protected children by providing a traditional home for orphans with both a male and female parent to balance and direct their faith formation.

 

[josh987654321]

Then we need to define MARRIAGE. Does MARRIAGE allow eight wives (King David), four wives (Muslims) or one wife (Sikhs)? Does MARRIAGE allow divorce (civil law) or not (Catholics). Does MARRIAGE allow same sex couples (Netherlands, California) or not (Texas, Italy).

Your error is to think that there is only one MARRIAGE when in fact there are many different versions of marriage. Different versions of marriage have different rules, just as different US states have different ages for marriages, and allow different degrees of relationship.

rossum

Okay.

So why is it that when we say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, we are accused of discrimination? why is it called “marriage equality” ?

Rossum, I know of someone who believes he can marry his house, why didn’t you add that to your list? couldn’t I use that very same reasoning you applied here?

rossum:

Then we need to define MARRIAGE. Does MARRIAGE allow eight wives (King David), four wives (Muslims) or one wife (Sikhs)? Does MARRIAGE allow divorce (civil law) or not (Catholics). Does MARRIAGE allow same sex couples (Netherlands, California) or not (Texas, Italy).

Does MARRIAGE allow a man and a house (Some nut case) or not (Me)

So the question is, is the definition of marriage completely arbitrary? Does any union someone wishes to call a marriage at any whim or fancy become a valid claim? and if marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I think you will find rossum, that at the construct of marriage althroughout history has been that simple reality that men and women are designed for one another, sure there have been variations, but these have never ammounted to anything like a total difference from this reality, only in very recent times has the nonsense notion of same sex marriage done that.

And as LisaA has rightly pointed out, the only reason the government has anything to do with marriage is due to procreation, if that is irrelevant, than really, the governemnt having anything to do with marriage at all I believe is completely foolish.

Same sex marriage advocates don’t seem to see that the bridge is out ahead.

In order to get what you want, you have to erase all the lines.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[gnosisofthomas]

What homosexualists cannot seem to grasp is that their sexual practices have zero SOCIETAL benefit. Lisa

What Catholicists can’t seem to grasp, is that homosexuals are part of society. Individuals support society, and society supports individuals. Heterosexualists such as yourself don’t seem to understand that marriage is a social contract between two unrelated people who want to be recognized as family, and receive the benefits associated with that. But apparently you’re too busy thinking about gay people’s sexual practices to recognize that.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I feel sorry for married Catholics, after reading the comments in this thread. It seems that for Catholics, marriage is about sex and procreation – love is just an afterthought with not much importance. This is the only explanation I can come up with for comments like, “the homosexualists demand we recognize their sexual activity.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but when I go to a straight wedding, or see a straight married couple out in public with their children, I don’t think to myself, “Oh I know what they’re doing in bed! Look at them, flaunting their sexual activity all over the place!” Yet make it a gay couple, and suddenly everyone is thinking about sex, not about the love they share. Honestly, this preoccupation some of you Catholics in this thread have with sex is kind of disturbing. I think to water marriage down to sex and babies makes a mockery of the Sacrament you claim to be defending. It’s a Sacrament of Love, first and foremost – you debase it when you elevate the sex act above love. Or can you not understand how two men could possibly fall in love with each other? Perhaps that’s it… But your lack of understanding only serves make your position irrelevant.

And at the end of the day, we’re not even talking about Sacramental marriage here, the issue is civil marriage. Some religions perform same-sex marriages, why should they not be recognized by law when yours is? Simply because your religion is against it? We are all forced by law to recognize heterosexual married couples as family, despite the fact that they are not related to each other. Why? Because they decided to marry and call themselves family, and they receive certain civil benefits and protections because of it whether they produce children or not. Gay couples deserve the same right.

P.S. It’s true, not all “love and bonding” is marriage. You love your sister, and your mother… But guess what. You’re already family! You don’t need to take legal action for that to be true. The real truth here is that not all love is the same type love. If you love your mother the same way you love your spouse, then you must have a really interesting family life… So stop trying to compare familial love to romantic love. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Dawnia]

What Catholicists can’t seem to grasp, is that homosexuals are part of society. Individuals support society, and society supports individuals. Heterosexualists such as yourself don’t seem to understand that marriage is a social contract between two unrelated people who want to be recognized as family, and receive the benefits associated with that. But apparently you’re too busy thinking about gay people’s sexual practices to recognize that.

 

[LisaA]

I feel sorry for married Catholics, after reading the comments in this thread. It seems that for Catholics, marriage is about sex and procreation – love is just an afterthought with not much importance. This is the only explanation I can come up with for comments like, “the homosexualists demand we recognize their sexual activity.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but when I go to a straight wedding, or see a straight married couple out in public with their children, I don’t think to myself, “Oh I know what they’re doing in bed! Look at them, flaunting their sexual activity all over the place!” Yet make it a gay couple, and suddenly everyone is thinking about sex, not about the love they share. Honestly, this preoccupation some of you Catholics in this thread have with sex is kind of disturbing. I think to water marriage down to sex and babies makes a mockery of the Sacrament you claim to be defending. It’s a Sacrament of Love, first and foremost – you debase it when you elevate the sex act above love. Or can you not understand how two men could possibly fall in love with each other? Perhaps that’s it… But your lack of understanding only serves make your position irrelevant.

And at the end of the day, we’re not even talking about Sacramental marriage here, the issue is civil marriage. Some religions perform same-sex marriages, why should they not be recognized by law when yours is? Simply because your religion is against it? We are all forced by law to recognize heterosexual married couples as family, despite the fact that they are not related to each other. Why? Because they decided to marry and call themselves family, and they receive certain civil benefits and protections because of it whether they produce children or not. Gay couples deserve the same right.

P.S. It’s true, not all “love and bonding” is marriage. You love your sister, and your mother… But guess what. You’re already family! You don’t need to take legal action for that to be true. The real truth here is that not all love is the same type love. If you love your mother the same way you love your spouse, then you must have a really interesting family life… So stop trying to compare familial love to romantic love. Not the same thing at all.

Since we are speaking of CIVIL MARRIAGE, what’s love got to do with it? Have you ever seen a civil marriage license that asks if you love each other? Civil marriage is just that, recognition of a particular human relationship conferring both rights and responsibilities. Male female marriage has certain intrinsic benefits that up until recently, society in general has deemed worthy of special recognition.

Please read through the thread before jumping in and repeating the same tired arguments that have been debunked numerous times.

As to the focus on sexual activity, this IS the reason that gays wish to be called married. Two men or two women, not involved in a sexual relationship but who just want to share benefits are not the cohort on the gay marriage bandwagon. Further biology is the reason that heterosexual marriage is both a unique and superior partnership as only heterosexuals can create a child. Society has ZERO interest in promoting your sex life Thomas, zero. Society recognizes man/woman marriage because of the benefits it provides to society.

Once more in case you don’t want to read:

Homosexual relationships are not equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
Society has no vested interest in elevating a particular, non-procreative sexual relationship to that of heterosexual marriage.
Society does not reward, support or promote an unhealthy, self destructive activity which certainly applies to gay males’ sexual practices. Lesbians, once again, by virtue of biology, do not suffer the same level of health issues. But their sexual relationship fails in providing future citizens
Homosexuals do not have to “marry” to get the vast majority of benefits they claim they are due. Basic rights are available to you as well. You have freedom of speech, religion, bear arms, etc.

To make your case, please address the objections to gay “marriage” with focus on actual arguments rather than strawmen and Red Herrings.

Lisa

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Since we are speaking of CIVIL MARRIAGE, what’s love got to do with it? Have you ever seen a civil marriage license that asks if you love each other? Civil marriage is just that, recognition of a particular human relationship conferring both rights and responsibilities.

You’re right. From a civil perspective, love has nothing to do with it. But nowadays we recognize that people marry (more often than not) for love, not to further the species. But if two straight people want to have those rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, even if they are not in love, they’re entitled to it. Maybe after gay marriage has become commonplace, gay people will do the same – but for right now, they want to marry out of love.

Male female marriage has certain intrinsic benefits that up until recently, society in general has deemed worthy of special recognition.

It’s still deemed worthy of recognition, and no one is deny how special it is to bring new life into the world.

Please read through the thread before jumping in and repeating the same tired arguments that have been debunked numerous times.

I did. And to sum up the entire argument, it came down to sex and children.

As to the focus on sexual activity, this IS the reason that gays wish to be called married. Two men or two women, not involved in a sexual relationship but who just want to share benefits are not the cohort on the gay marriage bandwagon.

So is sex the reason straight people wish to get married? Why do you think sex is the reason gays want to get married? There are certainly promiscuous gay people out there, but I doubt any of them want to marry their one-night-stand from last night. They want to marry the person they’re in love with.

Further biology is the reason that heterosexual marriage is both a unique and superior partnership as only heterosexuals can create a child.

Marriage is not necessary for biology to take its course. Marriage is a human creation that can and does benefit children (sometimes it also harms them because unfortunately not all marriages work out the way they would in an ideal world!), but it also benefits the two individuals who got married in the first place.

Society has ZERO interest in promoting your sex life Thomas, zero. Society recognizes man/woman marriage because of the benefits it provides to society.

Again with the sex. Is that all you think about? I, nor anyone else in this world, need marriage to have a sex life. Some of us want more than that. Marriage is about more than sex. Stop debasing it. Furthermore, single people raise children, and no one takes their kids away simply because they’re single. Gay couples also raise children – often ones straight people didn’t want.

Once more in case you don’t want to read:

Homosexual relationships are not equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
Society has no vested interest in elevating a particular, non-procreative sexual relationship to that of heterosexual marriage.

This is the 21st century, and the earth is overpopulated as it is. Society has every interest in promoting non-procreative relationships. In fact, from an objective perspective, society could benefit from forced sterilization. I’m certainly not advocating that, it has major ethical issues… I’m merely pointing out that society doesn’t need everyone pro-creating right now. And the human race is certainly not in danger of going extinct due to the 5-10% of the population that’s gay.

Society does not reward, support or promote an unhealthy, self destructive activity which certainly applies to gay males’ sexual practices. Lesbians, once again, by virtue of biology, do not suffer the same level of health issues. But their sexual relationship fails in providing future citizens

Monogamy is not unhealthy or destructive. Promiscuity certainly does, but those are generally the ones who have no interest in getting married. You’re generalizing about gay males. And again, society is not exactly hurting for new citizens at the moment, and the small number of gay people in the world are not going to make the human race go extinct.

Homosexuals do not have to “marry” to get the vast majority of benefits they claim they are due.

You’re right, neither do heterosexuals. But “the vast majority” is not quite the same as “all of the benefits”, and it’s incredibly expensive to get that “vast majority” of benefits (with no guarantee of keeping all of them, particularly upon someone’s death).

Basic rights are available to you as well. You have freedom of speech, religion, bear arms, etc.

What does that have to do with marriage?

To make your case, please address the objections to gay “marriage” with focus on actual arguments rather than strawmen and Red Herrings.

I addressed the objections I read in this thread. Like I said, it came down to sex and kids. If I missed something, feel free to add it to the list.

 

[josh987654321]

I addressed the objections I read in this thread. Like I said, it came down to sex and kids. If I missed something, feel free to add it to the list.

Could I ask your opinion on my objections?

 

[josh987654321]

What Catholicists can’t seem to grasp, is that homosexuals are part of society.

What gave you that idea?

Individuals support society, and society supports individuals.

Last I checked every person was treated equally under the law and homosexuals are people.

Heterosexualists such as yourself don’t seem to understand that marriage is a social contract between two unrelated people who want to be recognized as family and receive the benefits associated with that.

So why on earth would anyone be againt polygamy, incest or basically any group of people who don’t share any kind of intimacy to be recognised as married simply because they wish to be recognised as ‘family’? and why are there benefits associated with that?

Why can’t 3 or more brothers marry?

But apparently you’re too busy thinking about gay people’s sexual practices to recognize that.

Okay, “sexual intimacy/practices are irrelevant to marriage” now what? you have erased all of the lines (accept for ‘love’ in which all of my scenarios above qualify 100%), now I believe you have no rational argument to put any limits on marriage at all.

Is the definition of marriage completely arbitrary? and if marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

I believe this is worth repeating -
Diana Catherine:

meltzerboy:

The sexual relationship makes no biological sense for the purpose of procreation. But sex between humans is also an expression of love, companionship, and pleasure for the self and one’s partner. In this, homosexual sex does make sense.

Not when you understand the way the body works. The reproductive system is the only system of the body that to work takes two people of opposite sex but (being a little graphic) homosexual sex between men is the working of the digestive system and the reproductive system. Those two systems don’t combine together and causes problems in each system. It is not the way nature intended this to happen.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I know of someone who loves their house, why can’t they marry? why is that not part of ‘marriage equality’?