Who does homosexuality hurt?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Elspode

No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

None of that was in the title of the thread.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

None of that was in the title of the thread.

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.

Certainly you could make a case that since there was no other kind of marriage in history that the term "traditional Marriage" only came about because people who were gay wanted to marry and it now introduced an alternative to marriage as everyone knows it. Certainly there is history to it. Arranged marriages were not the status in quo in most cultures, same for dowerys. None of those things were part of US culture. And certainly it has changed over history, and certainly there is this new thing where same sex couples can marry, but to say that "traditonal marriage", as defined between and man and a woman, does not change history. Those who don't support this idea, chose a common theme against it and stuck with just that, because it is not in alignment with what they want. Just a different point of view. I personally don't have to much of an opinion on it.