{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/12/2013 11:40:57 PM
1
[quote]There are no non-religious arguments against it to be made.[/quote]
Actually there are.
English
-
Go for it, I'm all ears.
-
I could argue that it is not the proper role for government to interfere in religious institutions because of the separation of church and state, but I'd rather not considering this whole post violates bungies ToS
-
Edited by Baha: 1/13/2013 12:12:38 AMI'm totally okay with that. The problem is that 'marriage' is not solely a religious institution. It has a tangible legal definition, and that is what is being discussed. As far as I know no one is going to churches and forcing them to perform same sex marriages. Also bungie.next has loosened the rules quite a bit.
-
I think government ought to abandon marriage as a concept entirely and make every partnership that would be known as marriage civilly into a civil union. That is a solution where everyone ends up equal and both sides are happy. Right?
-
I've explained it earlier with the Puma. You're more than welcome to comment on it. It's one of the earlier posts.
-
The only points I see are: 1) It's unnatural/abnormal -So what? Wearing clothes is unnatural. 2) Just because it doesn't hurt anyone doesn't mean we should allow it - You have to have a reason to exclude someone, and unless you can somehow conflate abnormal with immoral, which is ridiculous, you haven't yet given one.
-
I think you missed my points entirely. Also, your bias will get us nowhere, but I digress. It's about condoning something that's abnormal and ignoring the fact that its a biological problem. Also, I had more than two points. But I see you just picked the ones you wanted.
-
How is it a "biological problem"? Do you have any studies to back that up? We also condone drinking alcohol. That's abnormal. No other species on the planet drinks to get drunk the way humans do, and humans didn't do it until very far into our natural history.
-
Edited by Dredd: 1/13/2013 10:59:11 PMTake basic biology and I'll get back to you. Work on your analogies as well.
-
That response is totally irrelevent. How is it a "biological problem"? And don't give me that shitty "take basic biology lol im clearly smarter than you" cop out. Use your words.
-
I've literally explained this in the conversation you just replied to. It deviates from the biological norm and contradicts the reproductive process.
-
>implying the majority of sex had by humans is for reproductive purposes
-
Edited by Baha: 1/13/2013 12:06:12 AMI'm not seeing other ones, so you'll have to help me out there. Your guiding premise seems to be that 'abnormal' = problematic, immoral, something to be reviled, especially with your insistence on the word 'condone'. I find this absurd, but I would be interested to see you try to actually justify it. As a biological problem, I'm going to assume you're referring to some combination of reproductive pressure/evolution/biological imperative etc. Feel free to correct me. Biological imperative is absolutely not the basis on which we found morality. We have notions like age of consent and sexual assault and so on.
-
Edited by Dredd: 1/13/2013 12:16:45 AMAbnormal isn't necessarily problematic, but it s bit something we should ignore and deem normal like everyone wants to. A lot of people say homosexuality is normal, but this is just not the case. To grant rights to people with an abnormal condition, where the rights are relative to the condition, is ignoring the fact that its a problem and portraying the notion that homosexuality is an okay trait. It's about cultural perception. And if I may note, homosexual culture isn't a very clean or classy one.
-
[quote]And if I may note, homosexual culture isn't a very clean or classy one.[/quote] I believe the word '-blam!-' may have been invented to describe people like you. 'Homosexual culture'? What the hell is that? Am I part of a striaght culture that binds us all into one unified way of acting? #bellend
-
Alright, so if you're willing to grant that abnormal isn't always a problem, then you then have to establish that homosexuality is abnormal in such a way as to be a problem. If homosexuality is not 'a problem', the rest of your argument can't go forward. So why is homosexuality a problem? I'm pretty sure this brings us back to biological imperative, which I addressed a bit in my previous post. So a same-sex couple can't produce children. Less say your significant other is sterile, is it immoral to be allowed to marry them over someone who can produce children?
-
In regards to your last question, not necessarily. Being sterile is indeed a biological problem, yes, however I don't see it as big of a problem as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a lot more than missing a few reproductive properties since the two organisms aren't compatible for reproduction at all. Also, I would say it is slightly immoral to marry them (the sterile significant other) over someone who is able to produce children. I would like to continue my family name and culture, and continue to produce for my species.
-
Edited by Baha: 1/13/2013 12:42:17 AMI'd say what you would want isn't really relevant, but I know you're mostly just alluding to biological imperative which is totally fine. At this point my argument is that biological imperative shouldn't even be a factor in whether same-sex couples can marry. It is not what we use to define morality or acceptable behavior. This is why we have prohibitions against -blam!- (sexual assault), and why we don't stigmatize people who choose to remain single or just not reproduce in our laws.
