Joined: April 2006
|Quote (thordaddy @ April 28 2006,16:54)|
|Actually, that's probably one of the biggest differences between us; I am happy, and you are angry.|
You can get this from such a small exchange?
I don't see 'homosexual" couples as important as traditional couples. Our society and many societies have said as much for centuries.
You have no logical argument against ANY and ALL adult unions being sanctioned by the state. NONE!
Very simply, you must tolerate ANY and ALL adult unions that seek state sanction lest you be a hypocrite.
You must bless the man and his sheep...
Yes, it's easy, from this short exchange, to see that you are an angry, bitter man.
Your statement that you don't see homosexual couples as as important as traditional couples is the entire content of your argument this far. I know you don't see that. So what? I know that many societies have held the same view. On some issues, such as slavery, universal suffrage, geocentrism, or racism, you just have to accept that large numbers of sincere people have been completely wrong. Deal with it.
The logical end point of my argument is, as you note, that any consensual adult union, whose proponents can argue coherently that that their state is analogous to "traditional" marriage, should be recognised as a marriage. The difference is that I am fine with that, as tending to increase the sum of human happiness, whereas you are terrified. The specific case that's currently an issue is gay marriage.
I don't have to support man-on-sheep marriage, however much you insist, because a sheep is not a consenting adult human being. If you honestly can't tell that a sheep is not a consenting adult human being, then there is no hope for you. Similarly for rocks.
So, my position: marriage recognition for all consenting adult human relationships that seek it. Terrifying, eh?