Quote: Animalman said: From what I'm reading, you're saying that reproduction is or was at some point a requirement for marriage. If I'm misinterpreting you there, tell me, because I can't recall ever hearing that being the case. At least, not in the history of this country, and certainly not recently.
No, I didn't mean requirement. Just forseeable likelihood of the scenario. Currently, I'm not using that as a justification, it's just a reason that homosexuals weren't inclusionary.
Quote: Well, while that may be true, I think it's beside the point. Whether or not the institution of marriage was established with the purpose of excluding homosexuals doesn't really matter.
I realize that it was beside the point you were trying to make, but it just felt like you were saying the whole concept was born with ideal unequality. Just pointing out that it's not the case.
Quote: I'm not arguing that the creation of marriage was an act of discrimination.
Alright, that was my mis-interpretation than.e
Quote: Animalman said: I realize I'm jumping ahead here, but since we're starting over with topic, I want to touch on some other things about gay marriage. Pre-emptive strike, if you will.
One of the arguments I've heard used against the legalization of gay marriage is that if homosexuality is legalized, it will open a Pandora's box of sorts, and will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia, bestiality, etc. While I definitely don't find any comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality to be apt, I do think it is a well-intended concern.
My belief on marriage is that any two consenting adults who wish to be married, should. That, in my mind, should be absolute, therefore excluding a person from marrying underage kids or animals(or your right hand, the example I believe DaveWTB used).
Truth be told Manimal, I really have no wish to go enter into this area of conversation, specifically because I've pretty much already covered it in the other thread, and I don't like making it my penchant to repeat myself.
I won't comment on the ideal of "two consenting adults". I will say, however, that I believe that Pandora's will be opened. One thing that comes to mind, which gives me this idea is a new tone coming from NAMBLA sympathizers (paraphrased) 'Boys understand what they're doing with us, to say they can't consent is idiotic'. This is a dangerous proposition that carries potential for a wide-spread and cultivated ideal. Not only because some of their cases are true (without going into a subject about whether or not kids know the weight of what they would be doing), but because, I find, with each new generation, we come upon younger awareness--And I'm not the only one recognizing it either. Kids are getting smarter, and all it would take is a proper demonstration of book smarts to give the perception of sexual awareness, not to mention a new tune of ad homimem that would create another civil rights movement for boys (and girls).
