would perry work to change the constitution?

[Perd Hapley]

Uh, yes I do.  That's why I was advising that you were close to saying it.  If I read that you were saying it, then I would have used different words.  Words saying that you actually did say it.  See the difference?  Do you even understand that I was trying to help you?  To let you know how others might misinterpret what you were saying?  And for trying to help, I get a snarky response.

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. I'm sorry you weren't able to express yourself clearly, but don't blame me for it.

[Perd Hapley]

At one time it was common sense that the Earth was flat. Or it was common sense that marriage should only be between people of the same standing in society. Or that marriage is only between people of the same race. That one was even written into law. Where are those common sense ideas now?

You've forgotten what we were talking about. You suggested that religion was the reason why marriage has historically been heterosexual. I supplied some non-religious avenues of explanation, which transcend religious differences. Whether or not they are good reasons for the heterosexuality of marriage is not the point. The point is that you are wrong to single out religion as the only possible answer.

You're also comparing ideas that have drifted in and out of fashion with certain groups of people, with an idea that has always been believed by the vast majority of people.

Yeah, and what's it got to do with marriage? People who can't have sex at all can marry just fine.

Again, we're discussing the origin of mankind’s firm conviction that marriage requires a male-female dynamic. It is beyond obvious that it probably arose from the fact that families were united and new families created by procreation (that's biological and involved sex, you know). Since homosexual sex doesn't create children, it's easy to see why marriage only made sense for male-female couples.

There are no logical arguments against GM. Faith, unrelated to logic by definition, is the only thing that is left. 

As I point out every time this comes up, if you want to change the law, it's on you to provide a cogent argument. The world is waiting. Also, you have the wrong definition of faith.

[Strings]

And this last bit of arguing back and forth is why I want the government out of "marriage".

Either make some form of civil contract, easily usable by any two or more consenting adults, or completely do away with any form of it (and require EVERYBODY to jump through all those same hoops).

If someone wants to be "married", they can find a church that will preform the ceremony...

[De Selby]

Homosexual relationships that were recognized and lasting are by no means a historical oddity - there's decent evidence that modern religious ideas about it are the anomaly, not the other way around.  There's a fairly extensive body of medieval Islamic law, for example, on gay marriages between sailors

[Perd Hapley]

Homosexual relationships that were recognized and lasting are by no means a historical oddity - there's decent evidence that modern religious ideas about it are the anomaly, not the other way around.  There's a fairly extensive body of medieval Islamic law, for example, on gay marriages between sailors

And these were considered to be equal to male-female marriages? And would these be sufficient reason for marriage to be viewed as just any old contract between two consenting adults? And how does this Islamic law affect the claim that religion is somehow unfairly keeping homosexual couples from marriage?

[De Selby]

And these were considered to be equal to male-female marriages? And would these be sufficient reason for marriage to be viewed as just any old contract between two consenting adults? And how does this Islamic law affect the claim that religion is somehow unfairly keeping homosexual couples from marriage?

The point is that your claim about 99 percent of humanity finding homosexuality to be wrong is not correct.  Those relationships weren't the same as marriage, but they were accepted and legally recognized.  They were not "any old contract" as the idea of a generic "right of contract" is relatively recent as well.

Homosexuality hasn't been universally outlawed or considered repugnant, that's the point.  It's entirely possible that it predates monogamy as a behaviour. 

[White Horseradish]

You've forgotten what we were talking about. You suggested that religion was the reason why marriage has historically been heterosexual. I supplied some non-religious avenues of explanation, which transcend religious differences. Whether or not they are good reasons for the heterosexuality of marriage is not the point. The point is that you are wrong to single out religion as the only possible answer.

No. That's not what I said.

What I said is that religion is the only reason to fight it now. I said nothing about reasons for the  supposed historical state of things, which, as DeSelby pointed out, is not what you think, anyway. I also said that "many people did it this way for a long time" is not a good reason for much of anything.

You're also comparing ideas that have drifted in and out of fashion with certain groups of people, with an idea that has always been believed by the vast majority of people.

And that is not correct either. I am not talking about small groups. Flat Earth thing was pretty damn universal for a long time. Miscegenation was widely enough feared that it made it into law in more than a few places. Owning slaves was also widely acceptable to the vast majority of people for many centuries and across cultures, yet it is deemed wrong now.

Again, we're discussing the origin of mankind’s firm conviction that marriage requires a male-female dynamic. It is beyond obvious that it probably arose from the fact that families were united and new families created by procreation (that's biological and involved sex, you know). Since homosexual sex doesn't create children, it's easy to see why marriage only made sense for male-female couples.

Nether does sex between people beyond a certain age, sex between people with certain disabilities, sex between people who choose not to reproduce. And some people can't have sex at all. All of those can marry, and by and large always could. What makes them different from a homosexual couple? Sex is something that may happen, but is not part of marriage as a legal construct.

[Perd Hapley]

The point is that your claim about 99 percent of humanity finding homosexuality to be wrong is not correct.  Those relationships weren't the same as marriage, but they were accepted and legally recognized.  They were not "any old contract" as the idea of a generic "right of contract" is relatively recent as well.

Homosexuality hasn't been universally outlawed or considered repugnant, that's the point.  It's entirely possible that it predates monogamy as a behaviour. 

I wasn't talking about moral views. I was talking about how marriage has been defined. You said that your example was not considered to be equivalent to marriage, which does not contradict my point.

[mtnbkr]

Blah blah blah, everyone is just reciting their personal talking points.

Chris