Metal Reviews

You say that it's "symbolic" like it doesn't matter, but for a lot of people (I imagine most) marriage is an awfully important symbol. People don't get married for legal benefits; they can get those same benefits through civil unions (afaik).

As for bringing up polygamy/incest/etc, I have no problems with consensual polygamous or incestuous marriages, and I'm against child marriages for the autonomy reason that trapt gave. Point is, there should be reasons for disallowing these things, not just culture and tradition.

I agree and Judeo Christianity is one of the main reasons why the term marriage is an obstacle for realization of civil rights for gay couples. T

Addressing the bolded red part.
It is important to a lot of people, which is why a lot of people don't want the definition being fooled around with. Regarding that culture and tradition aren't enough to disallow same-sex marriage, the majority of people disagree.

And as I said earlier, marriage is a very old and established institution; some would say a sacred one. If there is adamant opposition from the majority of people regarding same sex marriage, it seems rather unreasonable on the part of gays to keep pushing for it, when they can just as well have a civil ceremony. It smacks of imposing their wishes on the rest of us, and it certainly isn't about "rights" at that point.

The idea that pushing for gay marriage is "imposing their wishes on the rest of us" smells a little funny, I think. Really, who would it hurt if gays were allowed to marry? Would it make marriage any less important as a symbol? Why would it diminish the significance of marriage at all? Again, I must stress that the "civil union" idea is just a linguistic diversion to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Saying they should just make do with that sounds like a way of brushing the issue under the carpet.

Simply put its tyranny of the majority, and this is exactly what the constitution was against in certain aspects. Regardless, of whether a certain group even when the bulk of which is against a principle, if it defies the rights of others it needs to be questioned and addressed in the courts. Part of Judge.Walker's ruling in Prop 8 that I found incredibly enlightening was when he called the concept I believe "outdated". This does not change the fundaments of the basic functions/purposes of marriage, and this poses certain challenges to those who would attack contrarily with baseless assumptions such as "it hurts the children, because they need a mom and dad" or my personal favorite its "wrong"..

If anything it doesn't force anything on anyone, it merely makes more tenable the notion of it being first and foremost a CONTRACT between two individuals. I care not how old the institution is as at the very core and we share this in concordance, that the biological male and female are always going to take precedence for reproductive purposes, but for everything else and for some measure of equality- let them marry and fuck the Christian scumbags who see otherwise or the mindlessly backward social conservatives who have had their beliefs shattered by empirical data and the courts.

Meh, I really don't care either way.

But, since it is homosexuals attempting to change the rules of a very old and established and even sacred institution, one that most people don't want to see changed, I stand by my point.

That being said, I'm pretty bored with this topic, so...

carry on.

Meh, see my post above.
Not a subject I feel strongly enough about one way or the other to really spend a lot of time on.

Very well. Steve mentioned the "tyranny of the majority," which is a good point to bring up. It may very well be true that the majority of people don't want gay marriage, but is the majority always right?

Let me challenge the notion that homosexuals merely achieving the right to marry is equivocal of a notion as their biological worth as human beings. With our birth we receive the gametes for reproduction, and it is this that determines what we leave behind after we are gone, as ultimately our views mean nothing unless actualized and turned into political/social reformation. I am all for them being able to marry, but in the sense that they can every fully enjoy childbirth, the rigors of raising offspring, and watching them blossom into the wonderful individuals all children become is something that will never be afforded to them through natural means-aside from a proxy such as adoption.

We can allow gay marriage in this country, but in the end it will be nothing more than a progressive footnote. As basic biology, unless you believe in the nebulous Freudian notion that our sexualities are somehow malleable at birth will always favor the heterosexual couple.

So basically, people who can't conceive together shouldn't get married. Nonsense.
Evolution surpasses the biologic urges, we're not roaming beasts who hunt with spears and eat fruits and roots we were able to find anymore. Not sure what we've become is better but you cannot index marriage on reproduction alone because we're not just animals anymore. Only moral values apply as to the limitation of marriage.

I can't speak about the Native Americans with any authority, but as far as Greeks and Romans go, I don't see why that has to do anything with marriage. Both in Greek and Roman tradition marriage occurred only between a man and a woman and was aimed at procreation. In Greek society, homosexuality mostly occurred between an older man and an adolescent, with the former educating the latter in a great many things and actual sex being somewhat less important. The Romans were hush-hush about it as it was against the morals of the state (especially the Republic), but when it happened, it was usually in the form of a lesser citizen offering his ass to a more powerful citizen in the hope of being favoured with certain gifts, posts, etc.

I'm confused what you mean. Gay people don't love one another? What you said says they should marry.

Because straight people never have difficulties conceiving and adopted children are less loved having been adopted

Yeah, but I'm talking about as whole of a species. Unless queers can implant a vag into their pelvic areas and mimic the eggs of a woman, this is more or less your, Noodles, and The Annoying Frenchman's dream.

I don't see why that's a problem though. There are too many people on the planet to begin with, so it's not like gay couples not being able to have any is that big a deal.

Yeah, but I'm talking about as whole of a species. [/quote]Yeah but queers aren't the whole of our species so you aren't talking about the "whole of a species".

Yeah but queers aren't the whole of our species so you aren't talking about the "whole of a species".[/quote]

Semantics, and don't try to misconstrue the broader context of my point.

You're assuming that everyone wants to or even should have children. And that isn't correct.

My original post had nothing in it offering about their desire to have it, inasmuch as the body of text had any offering of commentary on the subject.

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe shouldn't have children?

I never said they shouldn't have children, I said by virtue of biological fact (no brainer I know), that they could never enjoying the rearing of them biologically, without a proxy as adoption.