1.) Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "sustained". Prove to me that same-sex marriage or unions has not been "cross cultural".<quoted text>
"Replete"? Scattered.....in different places not sustained..nor cross cultural.
Not Boswell's work which has been refuted.
The one cross cultural cross time composition, male female.
That demand is not as extensive as u imply. Even in the gay community its not the big seller u indicate. Plus more female couples marry than male.
Seriously VeeVee? All that to argue that monogamous conjugal marriage should not be the sole legal definition. You're smarter than that.
Different situation, different solution, civil union.
Why not? If not for SSM, polygamy wouldn't have a precedent. Even SSMers can see this. Again, why does it matter, if monogamous conjugal marriage is no longer the sole definition?
You seem to think that all of history has been recorded. You seem to think that historical data that has later been found to be objectionable has remained available for us to read and understand.
The truth of the matter is that even today we find examples attempts to erase "disagreeable" history.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan, previously found in central Afghanistan, were built in 6th century. In 2001 the Taliban blew up the Buddhas because of their present day religious ideology viewed them as "idols".
Do you think it's possible that over the centuries Christians could have acted similarly; expunging any records of same-sex marriages or unions?
I think it's more likely than not.
I believe this because gay people, just like straight people, want to be with someone--what to be bonded with someone long-term. The 20th century is not the first time gays attempted to force recognition of their relationships. That doesn't make sense.
2.) Boswell's book as been criticized by some and supported by some. The people who have criticized his work do so based on educated "opinion" and "belief".
Neither you nor I are qualified to know definitively whether or not Boswell is right.
However, for the reasons I explained above, I believe that this isn't the first time same-sex marriages/unions has come up across the eons of history.
3.) We've talked about the word "conjugal" before. You incorrectly believe that the word only applies to heterosexual couples. It actually applies to all spouses. And in this country and around the world, there are many same-sex spouses.
4.) If you're going to blame anyone for the "slippery slope" when it comes to marriage, you have no one to blame other than yourself. Your own marriage, and the marriages of hundreds of millions of people are the reasons that same-sex couples want to marry. We want the rights and protections.