I also don't think porn should be a guideline for the definition of marriage. Although I think if more couples used it as a guideline for sex it might make their marriage more interesting. I also do not believe sex should be used as a determining factor in marriage. I was just trying to point out that arguments against gay marriage that focus on the sexual aspect (specifically with men) are not valid. And I wanted to bring up lesbian porn. Hooray for lesbian porn.
It was clearly a hypothetical question. In reality, your argument that "you shouldn't care because it doesn't impact you" is flawed. We all care about things that don't directly impact us. Some things are clearly wrong, homosexuality, pedophilia, and beastiality are just a few.
Not true. Things may be deemed wrong by society, but this is rarely clear and changes over time. For example, a few hundred years ago arranged marriages for early teens was a normal occurrence. Today it would be considered pedophilia, as our society has set an almost arbitrary age of adulthood at 18. Around that time slavery was also accepted, yet today would be considered "clearly wrong." Homosexuality, or at least homosexual sex, was generally more accepted in both Greek and Roman cultures, yet acceptance decreased with the rise of Christianity. Whether the increasing popularity of Christianity had anything to do with this is debatable. But as you can see, clearly wrong depends on societal and individual opinion, not some obscure absolute truth.
Why not define it as a union? Marriage is something else... After all apples are apples and bananas are bananas... LOL
I've never gotten that a selfish notion of "so long as it doesn't affect me, who cares" is what's at play here. Quite the opposite, actually - I think it's rather "so long as two informed, consenting adults aren't harming each other, why is it our business to interfere with their wishes?" The comparison of pedophilia to adult homosexuality is spurious, in my opinion. Two adult homosexuals wishing to marry one another, as a means to ceremonialize their commitment, are on an equal footing of power, rationality, and informed consent. This is the basis for all relations between free adults. A pedophile's crime hurts a child. The crime is necessarily based on an unequal division of power, and cannot be, by definition, informed consent between two rational adults, "fully informed in the premises," freely coming to a decision of their own accord. There is no comparison, in my opinion, between the two things. One is a crime, which hurts children. The other harms no actor, and it is arrived at by two free, adult individuals. If two homosexuals wish to honor their commitment to one another by marriage, I flatly do not believe it is my business, and do not believe it is anyone's business, to stand in their way.
php, i said you shouldn't care because the people involved are consenting adults and it doesn't effect you. I know how hard acknowledging the fact that these people are consenting adults is for you, What with your tiresome, facile comparison between the rape of a child and homosexuality. A comparison that has been repeatedly kicked to death by various members of this forum.
I'm sorry. I just disagree and there are a lot of things that don't impact me but I think would be a negative thing for our society to acknowledge as socially acceptable behaviour. This isn't just limited to homosexuality, but it includes drug use, pedophilia, beastiality, and a lot of other things people do that have little impact on me directly. There is a difference in right and wrong in my view, this lands in the "wrong" column for me whether it impacts me or not. I know i'm a minority on these forums, but I sit on the majority nationwide. The American people (even a lot of liberals (look at California's recent vote)) don't want to see the sanctity of marriage defiled.
Again, it isn't solely the fact that it doesn't effect you. it's the combination of not effecting you and the fact that the people involved are consenting adults. In what way would same sex marriages be negative to society? (i'll wait for you to make some shit up and give me an opportunity to expose your arguments as slippery slope fallacies.)
My reasons are theological based. You are entitled to your opinion, i'm entitled to mine. You seem to get very upset when someone disagrees with you, stox.
Awesome! I am glad you can flatly say it is because of your theology. I applaud your right to your views but I also don't believe our government should cater to any theology. Not even mine.
Not upset, Just frustrated that someone like you, who freely admits that his opinion is based on primitive myth and not rational, independent thought, Expects us to take their "opinion" seriously. You do realise that "an old book tells me what to think" isn't actually an argument for or against anything, right?
Our government isn't entitled to cater to my theology. It is entitled to cater to what the American people view as right and wrong though. The majority of people agree with me, despite the fact that there is a wide variety of reasons people may disagree with the behaviour. I'm not scared to admit mine is theological based because I will also openly admit that I find the bible to be the only infallible source on earth. Not the Quran, not our history books, not our science books, and certainly not the people lurking in this thread.
Right, But you do realise that "an old book tells me what to think" isn't actually an argument for or against anything?
Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. Don't be upset and start crying about it.... if everyone was like you we wouldn't be having this conversation, and then it wouldn't be so fun to come here on a daily basis would it?
So as soon as the majority votes that it is no longer wrong you will be fine with it? Politically of course not theologically.
I can respect that I suppose. I personally believe that government should protect our rights and not our morals. I don't think government should legislate morality.
Again who are you to say whos a child or not. Like i said i have relatives almost that age that got married and have been happily married for many years. Now stox and others its time for you to protest that law , because it is discriminatory and cant truely evaluate the maturity of a womans age to get married even without her parents consent. I think everyone here is starting to realize the point im making. Seems like you are biased on some issues and unbiased on others. Ok is it time for you to make a thread on the age of marriage consent now? Bogart, your answer was classic lol
There is nothing there to answer. Your opinion comes off as if its a fact... it's not, it is an opinion you have.