What's the non-sequitur?
A "marriage" that only includes one sex. It is nonsensical.
"Almost" goes a long ways though. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of heterosexual marriage, require gay marriage to be in the majority or anything.
Well yeah, biology made most of us straight.
I'm not blaming them for the limitation. I'm blaming them for seeking to continue the prohibition in the government realm even as they enter conflict with other religions that support gay marriage.
First of all, there wasn't a "prohibition," except in the sense that the people in some of the states made their governments agree with you, by officially not caring about same-sex unions. Those state governments were prohibited from intervening in same-sex relationships. There was no prohibition on anyone's individual right to have such unions privately; have "weddings," etc.
Secondly, the minority status of homosexuals is not the most obvious explanation for the almost total lack of same-sex marriage in human history. And there's really nothing about minority status that would keep people from recognizing same-sex unions. The simple fact is that there is no reason for anyone to "care" about same-sex unions, because they have no particular impact on anyone else. This differs from opposite-sex unions, for obvious reasons.
You're defining marriage using your own terms...
False.
, and appealing to tradition.
Pffft. And you're appealing to what, exactly?
As Eric said, there's a lot more to 'marriage' than just 'one man one woman'.
As we've seen, Eric's argument was garbage. Also, I've said nothing about the number of partners. I'm talking about the genders involved.
Other than that, I'm going to have to ask again: Where is it harming you? Why does every marriage have to conform to the majority? Hell, other than your being upset about gays getting the same ability as you, specifically to marry somebody they actually want to have sex with, how is it even really affecting you?
He keeps going on about this. He's obviously reading nothing I say, so what does it even matter what I say here? kumquat sally ontology breakfast Right?
Hello?!
It's because homosexual couplings
do not affect me, or anyone else, that I. Want. You. And. Your. Government. To. Stay. Out. Of. It. Please repeat the phrase "fistful does not want government to intervene in same-sex relationships," if you read and comprehended what I just said. Thank you.
Also, no one has any new "ability" as a result of Obergefell, unless you count the ability to scam the government with a new class of fake marriages. I could do the same, if I wanted to. It would just get in the way of my real marriage, is all.
Like I've said before, marriage, to the government, is a contract. It's a very hefty contract that affects a person's taxes, benefits(surviving spouse payments, for example), insurance(healthcare). It amounts to two people signing up for a new default will, inheritance, medical power of attorney, burial benefits, child care, etc...
Blah, blah, blah; that doesn't explain why marriage should be expanded to cover non-marital relationships.
As we're seeing in today's society, marriage is not a requirement for reproduciton[sic]...
Are you trying to say that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage? Because marriage has never really been a requirement for reproduction.
Also, FWIW, I've been in a childless marriage for over ten years, now. The thing is, heterosexual relationships naturally result in children. Homosexual relationships don't naturally result in children, and there's no reason to expect or want them to. That wouldn't make sense.
Others have accused me of such.
Cool story, bro.