The definition has changed to be an ownership type relationship, a legal contract for property, a life long committment, restricted between races, limited by age. They are all changes, are they not? What makes the male-female link so integral when marriage has been used to define property owernship, for example.

As for definitions of homosexual marriage in history, there is indeed some evidence of it in the links I will list after. Even if there was not, however, are you saying that we should adhere to an idea simply because that's how we've done it thus far?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr...same-sex_unions
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411...es/darling.html
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/...htimes/opt3.htm

So you wouldn't have a problem at all with same-sex marriage itself? I know how hard it is to get you to answer a question without throwing up ridiculous side-tracks, but I'm trying.

You don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, but you do want the opportunity to marry multiple wives, and your family?

Edit: Personally, I don't have a problem with polygamy, but I think your desire to have marriage between family members is misplaced. Aside from genetic problems, I think you need to consider the emotional forces within a family unit, the issue of consent, and the safety of a childhood environment.

None of that has to do with this topic, however you are welcome to start a new one and argue your beliefs there.

For now, I'd like to see if I can get a straight answer out of you.

In this hypothetical, you would be quite content to allow same-sex marriages to continue without restriction or change?

Amen!

My god, this is getting annoying.

A same-sex union is not a marriage.

I have no problem with the state being willing to recognize ALL of the following relations, or only ONE of the following relations. I do have a problem with the state recognizing SOME of these relations and not the others.

1. Two unrelated persons, one being male and one being female.
2. Multiple Brothers married to an unrelated woman.
3. Multiple woman who are not related to eachother, being married to another unrelated man
4. Two unrelated persons, both of them being men
5. Two unrelated person, both of them being women
6. Two unrelated persons, one male and one female, along with other unrelated females who are not of equal status to the "wife"
7. Two related persons
8. A man and a younger male who is below legal age taken on as a student
9. A person and a another person who has passed away
10. Many men and many woman who all get married to eachother.

sorry for this randomnity, but i couldn't resist.

LEECHES!

Yes, I'd rather like to see a straight answer as well, instead of going off on tangets and reusing information that has been addressed.

Straight answer, yes or no, Daganev. Would be quite content to allow same-sex marriages to continue without restriction or change?

I'm sorry if your unable to understand a complicated answer to a complicated question. The wording of which completely undermines any sign of your desire to understand my point of view.

Yes, I'm sure everyone is aware of your spectacular ability to avoid answering anything resembling something such as an intelligently posed question or idea. That said, if this original question was too difficult, then perhaps something simpler would suffice.

Are you arguing to show your point of view? Or are you just arguing to argue?

I'm arguing against the notion that anyonw who is anti-"gay marriage" is a Christian racist biggot, or that the only people who want to "hurt the gays" are people who have religious feelings.

If you havn't caught onto that by now, then I'm sorry.

You remind me of the Colber Report when he asks Democratic senators...

George Bush: Great presidant or Greatest president?

If you think that is the case, you're very sadly mistaken, though it is hardly surprising. Unless you take people speaking in generalities as a direct attack against yourself, I don't recall anyone calling you a bigot, or Christian in this entire thread. The only cases I have seen it either word mentioned is when they are in reference to the actual thing.

Is it false that it has been argued Gay marriage should not be allowed, because of something stated in a Christian, thus religious bible? No, that is a fact. My own family has used that as their main excuse, in fact, but it hardly accounts for every religious person. Nor has it been said that the only people wanting to 'hurt the gays' are religious. There are plenty of non religious people I'm sure that want to hurt them, as well.

But if that wasn't blatantly obvious (which it honestly should be, as a twelve year old reading over my shoulder understood that fact perfectly), considering no one has even said:



well, then I'm sorry you couldn't understand that, but it's not our responsibility to explain that. Now that the matter is cleared up, perhaps you can tell us if you actually are against gay marriage, or if everything you posted was just to defend your misplaced notion that all religious people were being attacked.

No, damn it, you can stop dancing around and trying to muddy the waters.


Your 'complicated' answer to me says that you would have no problem whatsoever with same-sex marriage if it was already legally possible. That you would not want it changed or restricted in any way. Is this right?

Couple clarifications:
- Family and records of a family were created to avoid interbreeding. Even in the most primitive tribes, in general (exceptions later) a knowledge of who were your close relatives was there to avoid marrying them. This includes the sons of your mother (but not your father), or the people with the same spiritual tribe than you, or any other criteria. The reason: It tended to produce defective descendency, even if they didn't know about recesive genes. Now, for the exception: Certain cultures allowed sibling marriage in the case when said siblings were supposed to be over the rest of the population, usually for religious reasons (like they were descendants of a God, and thus must marry into the family to keep that Godly blood pure). As to have a recesive gen kicking in you need that defective gen to be in the family in the first place, it could work for specific families. Not for all the population. So, incest has always been considered ilegal or restricted to special cases due to the harm it can do to the global gene pool and the health of communities.

- The reason males cannot enter female restrooms is that usually the man has no reason to enter. If your reason is to take a look at the females there, they have all teh right in the world to feel offended and dennounce you. Same with females entering male restrooms.

- Daganev, you are comparing "why those two people cannot have the same rights as anybody else" to "why cannot I marry my goldfish".

I mean seriously, wtf. Why don't you add in there:

11. A person who wants to marry his goat
12. A person who wants to marry his hand
13. A person who wants to marry a fictional character
14. A person who wants to marry an inanimate object
15. Etc.

=====================================================

You know what Daganev, let's look at female rights like voting. A female dog can't voted, so why can a female woman! That's about as realistic as you trying to bring in such factors as marrying a corpse versus gay marriage.

Your obviously not aware of the religious custom of Ghost Marriages. Its not nice to mock other people.

I did a search on the internet for every time of marriage in every culture and thats what I found.


Ghost Marriages in Africa


Ghost Marriages in China


Don't mock that which you don't understand.

You comparing homosexual marriage to wanting to use a woman's bathroom seems rather mocking to me.

Then you obviously are not understanding the desire of Transvestites who push very strongly that men and woman should not be forced into seperate bathrooms.


AND, I was not comparing the two activities, I was comparing the LEGAL CONCEPTS behind them. Sorry if thats too complicated.


edit: Can't say I'm surprised by people's lack of caring for other's views or issues though.

Can I take your continuing unwillingness to answer a simple question as a reluctance to have your supposedly 'rational' arguments revealed as based on something more intangible, Daganev?

I've never heard that argument from transvestites before but I'd be more than happy to hear what they have to say. I have no problem with unisex bathrooms personally so it's a bit of a moot point to argue that issue in itself with me.

Legal concepts and the activities they pertain to are not and cannot be separated. It would be lovely if we lived in a cut and dry world where one rule applied to all situations, but I'm afraid we don't Daganev. Feel free to delude yourself that it really can be that simple, it does not bother me.

Your snide remarks don't phase me either, but 10 points for effort!

I allready answered your question.

If the definition of something was always something other than it is now, then I would have no arguments for or against its definition staying the same.