They claim its equivalent to interracial marriage, so they want to teach how at a point in US history people were bigoted against it etc yadda yadda.
‘They’? Homosexuals are individuals, with their own minds. They don’t operate under a hive mind, and they’re not all telepathically linked. They each have their own view on certain situations, and I rather doubt that ‘they’ want this to happen. At any rate, I can’t see it happening, no matter who asks for it. It’s a silly idea.
Besides, it’s been opposed throughout most of Europe and beyond for centuries, so there’d be a lot of ground to cover.
This would hold more ground if homosexuals just called it something different. After all, its the rights theyre after not what its called. Secondly, by using the word Marriage that is dragging the religious aspect of it into this.
I agree with the first point you’ve made here. I myself do not understand why so many homosexuals want marriages in countries where they have the equivalent under a different name. Of course, religious folk don’t own marriage. It’s not a strictly religious institution.
Correct, we also dont have to pretend its something that its not. This is what all the heat is over. They dont understand that in order to make Oj you need oranges and they keep bringing apples. Theu yhould make Apple Juice instead, but they want us to accept that its equivalent to Orange Juice, when its self evident that it isnt.
Yeah, but I’ve already told you that I don’t see marriage as anything other than a legal arrangement, so I can’t really empathise with you there. As far as I’m concerned, we can change the definition at our own will. Having said that, since you feel so strongly about that while practising homosexuals, who generally aren’t religious, don’t, it does make me wonder why the majority won’t settle for marriage under a different name.
By not adding to it, theyre using resources and allowing populations to decline. Much like heterosexual couples who contracept. And dont forget its not just gays, its the infectious mentality that has spread that is dangerous.
Populations are still rising. I’m sure that I need not remind you that the majority of people on the Earth are heterosexual, and even though contraception is being used most people still want to have children and are still having them.
i’ve read in an unbiased study that the world is currently populated at 9 billion and perfectly capable of sustaining 37 billion. Id post the link but Im writing this thru my phone.
I said that I don’t believe in overpopulation, though I’d love to see this study. Just out of curiosity.
And thats not what were asking anyone to do. The term has a standard regardless of it being secular or religious it has an objective meaning.
I don’t agree, on the basis that marriage is not a physical entity but a man-made concept created purely for legal purposes. The definition has not always been the same. Even centuries ago, the definition of marriage would be remarkably different depending on where you were. All throughout history, some countries and cultures may have accepted polygamy, or interracial marriage, while others may not have. The age at which a person can marry remain different across nations even today.
If the DMV denies a drivers license to a blind man, should the blind man conform to the laws or should the DMV conform to the blind mans will and endanger the rest and even him? No one is forcing the blind man to drive.
That’s a bad analogy, since in such a case there is a very valid reason to deny the blind man a driving license. You’ve tried to link this concept of someone acquiring a driver’s license to the idea of marriage having an objective definition, and I don’t really see how the two situations are even similar.
You made a very valid point about homosexuals not being happy with marriage under a different name, though. I don’t really understand why an irreligious person would care about what their partnership is called.
