Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[Thorolfr]

Agreed. But something about the body of man and woman is suggestive of its proper venue.

There are other species beside humans that engage in non-reproductive sexual activity including between members of the same sex. Are you suggesting that this is also improper?

Non-reproductive sexual behavior is sexual activities animals participate in that do not lead to the reproduction of the species. Although procreation continues to be the primary explanation for sexual behavior in animals, recent observations on animal behavior has given alternative reasons for the engagement in sexual activities by animals.[1] Animals have been observed to engage in sex for social interaction, demonstration of dominance, aggression relief, exchange for significant materials, and sexual stimulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[Rau]

There are other species beside humans that engage in non-reproductive sexual activity including between members of the same sex. Are you suggesting that this is also improper?

I’m saying we can reason that it has no place in human relationships. Humans don’t eat their young either.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m saying we can reason that it has no place in human relationships. Humans don’t eat their young either.

I know that a lot of people believe that humans are completely different from and superior to animals. But I think that we’re not as far apart from each other as many people imagine. Aggression is part of our nature and humans do things to each other that are probably just as bad as eating their young. How many animals besides humans engage in wars or other acts of aggression that kill hundreds of thousands or millions of their own species?

 

[frobert]

frobert:

Inappropriate for whom?

Inappropriate for anyone who understands marriage to be a sexual relationship. I cannot conceive of how a sexual relationship between 2 men is an appropriate thing for the State to recognise as marriage.

I get it, it is be inappropriate for YOU based on your beliefs which are based on two logical fallacies.

The first, moving the goal posts. It begins with the claim that marriage is for procreation, but when it is pointed out that there are heterosexual couples who can’t procreate, the terms change and now it’s a matter of being able to reproduce in principle. This is how you get your terms to fit you conclusion.

The argument is also circular. That is, it claims that gay marriage is wrong because marriage is only open to those who can procreate in principle. And those who can procreate in principle are heterosexual couples. In short the argument really is that only heterosexual couples can marry because only heterosexual couples can marry.

 

[Rau]

It begins with the claim that marriage is for procreation

I don’t believe I made that assertion. But since you don’t dispute the observation that marriage is a sexual relationship, I would make the assertion that sexual relationships between two men is an odd basis on which to qualify a relationship as “marriage”.

…gay marriage is wrong because marriage is only open to those who can procreate in principle. And those who can procreate in principle are heterosexual couples.

By “heterosexual couple”, you mean “man+woman”? That is reasonable and not circular. It rests on the complementary nature of the sexual capacities of man and woman. It is evident by simply observing our bodies.

 

[frobert]

It begins with the claim that marriage is for procreation

I don’t believe I made that assertion. But since you don’t dispute the observation that marriage is a sexual relationship, I would make the assertion that sexual relationships between two men is an odd basis on which to qualify a relationship as “marriage”.

If not procreation then what is your basis for marriage?

I would make the assertion that sexual relationships between two men is an odd basis on which to qualify a relationship as “marriage”.

We are all entitled to our opinions

By “heterosexual couple”, you mean “man+woman”? That is reasonable and not circular. It rests on the complementary nature of the sexual capacities of man and woman. It is evident by simply observing our bodies

If your basis for marriage is not procreation then why would it matter if the bodies are the same or different?