If procreation and marraige are mutual....

I am not sure if it is a fallacy to appeal to 'tradition' or the 'length of time something has been a certain way' but if that is the case you could very well by the same logic argue that because slavery was acceptable for thousands of years that it should still be, or that because beating and raping your wife in a marriage was acceptable it should still be, or that because fathers literally owned and sold off their daughters for a dowry they should still be able to do so. These things were tradition and the norm in society for a long time, that does not mean they are not suspect to change as we progress.

As far as most see it now the government recognizes marriage on a federal level and grants special rights and privileges to married couples, so it is only fair that in a free country where people have a right to pursue happiness that they should also be free to achieve those same rights as other couples regardless of their physical gender in relation to the person they love and wish to be legally united with.

 

So then why did the Native Americans perform same sex ceremonies?

 

Oh don't mind "David" guys - he posted in Current Events about how "homosexuals are using heterosexuals as human guinea pigs" and a link to his YouTube video. Basically his animus against gays stems from getting duped by a male-to-female transgender...

 

Really? Cause the supreme court has NEVER ONCE said is limited to a man and woman, nor that procreation is necessary for marriage. The only thing they ever ruled was that marriage is fundamental right.

They never made any ruling one way or another on whether or not it should be limited to one man or one woman, which is why states are allowed to make their own laws on gay marriage.

 

I didnt say anything about the supreme court, nor procreation being neccessary for marriage, so not sure what you are babbling on about. And the supreme court has said-

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
and
"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .
t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society....
Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place"

 

They didnt consider them to be of the same sex. Kind of like a transgendered male after surgery can marry a man. Because after surgery he isnt considered the same sex.

 

But were the same sex.

Do you think before you post?

 

You asked why and I told you why.

 

They saw them as the same physical sex, but with different "spirits." Or to use a more scientific term, a different biological makeup/attraction. I don't know why I bother...

 

I don't know either. Dixon is proven wrong over and over, yet spouts the same old tired mantras. No matter how much evidence we present him with, it's the same old thing. If he would just come out and say that he hates the idea of same sex couples marrying, that would at least be refreshing. But he won't. Wonder why?

 

Not necessarily. People break their marriage vows all the time, and obviously not every couple makes for good parents..