You're saying sex between brother and sister "isn't a problem" because presumably they can just abort their offspring? Typical progressive liberal. Twisted as that is, that would still not be a reason to oppose marriage, would it?
I would argue an institution can only become more prevalent if it's made more inclusive the more people who are included in it the stronger it will be. Typically institutions are destroyed by exclusivity. dang Christians listening to Jesus. If you think that Christ is exclusive I don't think you have a strong concept of what Christianity is. One of the predominant religions in Christianity calls itself Catholic. Catholic means universal. I think the greedy pedophiles and communist ruined that institution. I think the reason why Street people aren't getting married in as high of numbers as we saw in the past is because conservatives signed into law things that damaged marriage.
Subverting the language? If it wasn't for people subverting the language you wouldn't have modern English. Maybe it was time it needed to be subverted what's so sacred and magical about your special little words that we need to what issue fines for saying them about things that you don't consider proper?
No it kind of is a good case. We were talking about something like murder or some sort of dishonesty that insulted in financial loss. Then you'd have a point but what we're talking about is two ladies or two dudes that would otherwise be together anyway being able to get married. Nothing is taken away from anything nothing is deceptively gained or lost. Essentially there is no victim
Well when I talk to single straight men that don't want to be married it's not because those darn gays messed it all up it's because they don't want to be raped over the coals in a divorce. The damage if any caused by same-sex marriage to the institution of marriage is microscopic compared to the damage straight people did to it.
This would carry a little more bite if he gels weren't full of the sons and daughters of divorced heterosexual couples. It's the games weren't filled of children from divorce heterosexual couples. It doesn't so much demean the word it just changes the meaning and that happens. And it happens by usage not by government decree so even if the government decided to pay lip service to your magical words and everyone else just decided it was marriage it would still be marriage. Is the way the language is defined. If I were you I would be worried more about people demeaning the institutions. It's only ever heterosexual people I've met that have had four or five marriages and divorces. I've only ever met heterosexual people that have children in a single parent household. The institution was ****ed long before we ever came along. So before you turn this on me about how I need to respect your magic word maybe the return a little magic to it.
Because it's unacceptable in society that's why you would object to the marriage. I don't have to show a reason for why we have rules against siblings marrying each other are people marrying cars or dolphins or cats or whatever. You have to show a reason for it like the gay rights advocacy over the past 50 years did. Show why your marriage to your brother or your sister should be legally recognized by the state?
The reason why society opposes it is because such relationships to be taboo. Now if you want to talk about removing you can just taboo feel free to convince me and the rest of society that brothers and sisters need to marry each other. You don't just get to say oh my wacky ideas should be allowed because of this one thing that you're misinterpreting.
That is the secular meaning that came later. More importantly to the foundation of society, it is a Covenant between Man, Women and God. Of course you would probably redefine any of those three nouns.
The victim is society, culture, and the family. If you believed in God, you would thoroughly understand the precept of those.
Divorce is every bit as denigrating as homosexual relationships. Equally destructive to family. If you were honest, you would not point to one perversion to sanctify another.....but that is the way of the world!
That's the legal definition since government recognized marriage. No one cares about some covenant except the people making it. It's a personal matter and it still exists.
If Las Vegas, Nevada the place to be for heterosexual marriages. then San Francisco, California is the place to be for homosexual marriages. I think that's fair enough.
How are those things victimized? If gay people aren't allowed to call their union marriage what does that do for culture society and family explain instead of giving an appeal to purity
Someone man and a woman divorce and the kids were made to suffer this the people that suffer and how when do people have the same sex but decide to pair up. I can tell you all the people that suffer in the divorce and exactly how and why they suffered.
I don't disagree with you between the man and a woman and important building block of society but how does two men or two women take away from that? You keep saying how society and culture is a victim explain how?
The greatest perversion of morality is religion. People who put the whims of a bronze age imaginary friend above the rights of actual people.
A union between a man and another man or women and another woman does not equal what a man and a women bring to the table. Do not cheapen it. Call it by another name.
Marriage is sufficient. Give a reason why it isn't. Whether you think it's not equal or whether you need an extra gold star from Mommy government isn't really a good reason. Do you have anything better than sacred magic words?
I never stated that they can aboard their offspring. I stated that they should not be having offspring. The guy can take a vasectomy and live with his sister in Alabama for all I care.