View Single Post
Old 10-19-2006, 05:06 PM   #171
Dagobahn Eagle
@Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Far as I know, there's no NEED for interacial marriage, nor is there any reason to ban it.[/quote]Then support it. If you don't dislike it, what's the problem?

I mentioned infertile couples b/c most people try to argue that if the prohibition on gay marriage is due to inability to reproduce, then shouldn't infertile heteros also be denied.
And it is a valid argument. You imply marriage without child-birth is wasted or not fullfilling the meaning of marriage. We point out that by that reasoning you should be against infertile marriage, too, or marriage between two people who simply don't want to have kids.

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.
Public sex is different from private marriage. Apples and oranges.

The only reasons I see you mention are basically "b/c I wanna" and "it's not (measurably) hurting anyone"
It's not hurting anyone, period. Show me how it's "immeasurably" hurting somone, please.

You really haven't demonstrated, logically or otherwise, any real reason to turn marriage upside down to include homosexuals.
The above-mentioned reason is a logical reason to support it. They deserve equal treatment, plain and simple.

Oh, and it was the disallowing of homosexual relationships turned it upside-down back in the day. We're merely repairing the damage.

Outside of govt benefits (SS, govt pension, etc..) there is no pressing financial reason either.
Nope. Besides from the important ones, there aren't any important ones.

Your comment about your marriage vows are equally non-sequitur in nature. Not mentioning procreation in wedding vows doesn't change the original reason for why marriage was created in the first place.
One word: Progress.

Originally, traditionally, the woman's place was in the home and the man's place was at work. Yet you're not complaining about them "turning roles upside-down" to allow women to work, do you?

I was merely responding to the non issue about it "not harming anyone" as a reason for allowing something.
It's not intended to hurt anyone, and it does not hurt anyone. No more than the end of segregation hurt anyone. No more than inter-racial adoption did. No more than inter-religious marriage does.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: