That's your answer to my statement:<quoted text>
The easy answer is justice and liberty.
Well if its "liberty and justice", you're after, why stop there? Plural marriage? Liberty and justice demands it. Siblings? DittoPietro Armando wrote:
By what reasoning to we pass a law that ignores biology, and the the differences between the sexes? By what reasoning to we fundamentally legally redefine a relationship, that has been throughout time and place, a union of male and female, and is the relationship upon which society builds itself?
Procreation doesn't need to be a requirement. Its a simple concept actually. Marriage transforms a man and woman into husband and wife. They have sex, conception has a good chance of occuring, other factors not withstanding, babies are born. The law presumes a married couple will consumate their relationship, and engage in "marital relations". It doesn't need to require it. It happens naturally. Didn't anyone ever explain where babies come from?Your arguments are weak and lazy. "Ignoring biology?" How does allowing same-sex couples to marry "ignore biology" if procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for the legal establishment of a civil marriage?
JeraldHow does allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage alter, change or deny the ability of opposite-sex couples to form that which you claim "is the relationship upon which society builds itself"?
You seem like a bright fella. Once the standard is changed, and it has in several states, it changes the, orientation, so to speak of marriage as union of husband and wife centered around the products of their union, children. To be fair, marriage has been on a downward tract over the past several decades. High divorce rates, increased out of wedlock birthrates, greater frequency of cohabitation, and decreased interest in marriage in general. If those conditions were not present, the idea of a "same sex marriage" would be, inconceivable. Alas that is where we are as a society. Let's say for the sake of discussion, ssm is legal nationwide. What's next? Plural marriage, more than likely considering that its already being discussed in the context of legal ssm, and the Brown family lawsuits, and expressed support for ssm. Will we reach a point, as a society, when marriage doesn't mean anything, because it means everything?
This piece was written ten years ago in Canada. One of the authors is gay. This is an excerpt from thier conclusion:
No one can predict the future of this experiment. People are not like rats in a lab. Mistakes are much more costly. And unforeseen things are just as likely to happen because of social engineering as they are because of any other kind. We try to fix every problem, but we usually end up replacing one with another. Forty years ago, it seemed like common sense that changing the divorce laws would be an act of compassion for the few but one that would make little or no difference to the many. That was naive, to say the least. Now, we know better. It changed us in ways that no one could have imagined. For better or worse — better for some, worse for others — we now live in a "divorce culture."42
Most people like to consider their society a tolerant one, and this is certainly laudable. But no society could endure if tolerance were taken to its ultimate conclusion: the belief that "anything goes." In addition to tolerance — otherwise known as "love," "caring," or "compassion" — every society must be guided by wisdom. And that requires citizens to be as reasonable as they are tolerant. Canadians should think twice, therefore, before redefining marriage.