A) How are they nebulous? B) Well at least you know you are assuming. Was Black Like Me a mockery of the racial struggle? Or the SNL skits? But again, you are assuming something which may or may not be true, and building further arguments on that assumption. C) You are saying because certain groups have reacted to issues in the past by speaking out against it, that that must be the only correct response to any group which is wronged. So much so, in fact, that if they don't react that way, it disqualifies the legitimacy of their movement. To call this a leap of logic starting off on an assumption would be generaous. D) Try a few. Historical examples are kind of a hobby of mine.
How many times in the history of the mankind have 2 gay people had intercourse where the ultimate purpose is for procreation?
I don't mean to deminish the effect your race has ony how people perceive you, but it isn't an exclusive. The whole prejudiced thing is just so gay...
Way to answer the question. I'll ask it again. How many times have you, padgett316, had sex for recreational purposes?
Or just one? Are those with vasectomies or hysterectomies supposed to stop having sex? What about women who have gone through menopause?
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Period. Bringing race, which was a wrong (especially since I'm a product of mixed-race marriage) is irrelevant. What next, polygamy is going to be allowed, because that is what some whackjobs out West think? Guess govt. can't regulate that. What about marrying your 13-year old cousin? Guess govt. can't regulate that either if they can't even tell two men or two women that their illegitimate joining is not a marriage.
How many times in the history of "the mankind" have 2 octogenarians had intercourse where the ultimate purpose is for procreation? we don't stop them from getting married. wTF is the big deal with procreation anyway? is it that difficult a feat? most of the time it's an accident anyway. yes this planet is dangerously underpopulated. gimme a break.
The point is, marriage has been redefined countless times. It may surprise you to learn that marriage predates the Bible. Was done outside of the context of the Bible. And, for the most part, marriage has been a property contract more than an affirmation of conjugal relations between a man and a woman.
No it's not. That used to be the definition of marriage. Oh my god, the definition has been altered a bit and the sky hasn't fallen. As far as the rest, I don't see how they're connected. Did people argue the same when they argued against different races marrying? Besides that, are you for civil unions between multiple partners or cousins?
Heterosexual couples who are plagued by some form of infertility are the exception to heterosexual couples' ability to procreate. 2 guys or 2 girls having sex, by definition, will not ever procreate, and that is not an exception but an absolute rule of nature.
2 infertile heterosexuals of the opposite sex having sex, by definition, will not ever procreate, and that is not an exception, but an absolute rule of nature.
If you remove procreation from the marriage debate, you're left with two justifications for banning gay marriage: history and religion, neither of which is the exclusive property of any government or ideology.
What, in your mind, was the compelling argument which justified them altering the defintion to allow inter-racial marriages? Or have you stopped answering my posts? If so, cool. I understand.
Congratulations. You managed to dodge my obvious point, which you clearly understood since you made the effort to hurdle it and ignore it rather than confront it.
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy." - U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Ga, who introduced a constitutional amendment in 1912 to ban interracial marriage.
Sorry, I didn't really understand your "are there exceptions" comment, so I didn't answer it. I believe that the family is the basic sociological unit of civilization. Obviously black men and black women are just as capable of producing a family as all other races of men and women, and it was clearly wrong to deny them that right. Homosexuals are not capable of producing a family through their relationship. Using the small percentage of heterosexuals who are incapable of reproducing b/c of age, infertility, etc. as a reason to allow gays to marry is ridiculous. But for their infertility, age, etc., heterosexual couples could reproduce if they chose. Homosexuals cannnot...ever. I realize that if you dig enough there are examples of non-reproducing heterosexual families, but I don't see how that has any implication on gays' having a right to get married at all. As someone may have mentioned earlier, child-rearing is not the only tenet of a marriage, although it's the fundamental one. Just because one particular heterosexual couple is not capable of having children or does not wish to have children does not necessarily mean any 2 entities who choose to get married can. There's no correlation there at all.
