Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The marriage institution is for the purposes I described. There are other legal arrangement for those who associate themselve for other reasons.
Marriage, in its intended state, formalizes the commitment of a man and woman to society, which society rewards. Homosexual couples, by definition,
cannot fulfill this social function and therefore should not reap the benefits.
There is no logical argument to allow marriage between same-sex couples.
Now, with marriage, you bring up this issue of what exactly is "marraige"? There are many variations like polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy,
exogamy, common law, and finally monogamy. You are obviously only defending the stance of monogamy in which two people are committed to only each
other and no one else. Modern Christianity, and to an extent, all Christianity has only identified itself with Polygamy. Essentially, your arguement
becomes one of Christian origin, and excludes the beliefs and defintions of marriage of other cultures. America is a "Melting Pot", or a "Salad
Bowl" depending on which ideological view you take, but in essence we are a people made up of different social, economic, and religious cultures. No
one religious authority is supposed to dominate the landscape of America, otherwise America would be like Islam in that respect.
Some marriages have been defined as either proxy or dowry throughout the ages as well. The ancient Egyptians (royality) used to partake in the custom
of marrying their own Brother/sister, and thus the definition of marriage is a constantly changing one. Because of the evolution of the defintion of
marriage, there is no reason to assume that marriage will always be defined as between "man and woman". Just as many cultures and countries that
once defined their laws by religious doctrine, no longer do so because of the ever changing face of "marriage".
The perpetuation of the species is irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Marriage is, as you stated, a formal institution which is for the time being
governed by the rules of humanity, not natural order and evolution. So, a scientific claim that Homosexuals cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot
benefit social structure are completely irrelevant to the discussion of a human created "institution".
You say, "Marriage, in its intended state...". As I have already described marriage has no "intended state" because it consists of many states
that constantly evolve from one another. A non-changing definition of marriage simply is not historically accurate...nice for people to formulate
opinions on? Yes. Inaccurate in historical study nonetheless.
Homosexuality has always been a part of humanity, and to an even bigger extent...nature itself. To deny those that are homosexual their rights in a
formal society is to in effect loose control of the very defintion of "marriage". The defintion of marriage has always changed along with law and
doctrine that state who/who can't get married. To strangle the fabric of marriage is to let its structure to remain the same, and not allow it
"breathing room" in a free and independent society as it has naturally done for thousands of years. Accordingly, Homosexuals should be allowed to