View Single Post
Old 03-27-2013, 10:30 AM   #134
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1129673
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Actually, that's not true. People just up and married without the state. Even in ancient societies which were tolerant of homosexuals, marriage was recognized between a man and a woman, without state involvement.
It was also recognized beyond simply a man and a woman. There have been many forms of marriage historically recognized. The Bible records several examples, or rules, of what we would not consider to be traditional marriage. Those marriages were just almost exclusively of opposite gender.


Quote:
Then you don't understand natural law. You take man back to a state of nature and there's actually very few natural rights. Sodomy isn't the basis for marriage because it doesn't forward survival of the race. Historically, children were needed for survival and it was considered wealth. Marriage was not based on love but on economic survival and furthering the race. Hence it's not part of nature aka right reasoning for survival.* It's merely a preference.
I understand it, I just don't agree with you on what is and is not natural. I observe that homosexual behavior, including pair bonding, exists in the animal kingdom. I observe that homosexual people in long term relationships are as healthy and happy as their straight counterparts other than dealing with interference by the State and Church, and bigotry from society. I don't accept that marriage exists to forward the survival of the human race because it never has existed for that purpose. It's a social contract enacted by individuals. It has been enacted for a wide variety of reasons throughout human history. I believe that this preference of partner is the root of the contract.

Quote:
In the meantime you want the state to "treat her citizens with equality" meaning the arrangement is identical to hetersexual marriage when it isn't. You make cultural Marxist argument here which is demands equal results via special rights set by the state. Instead of just getting the state back out of it as it once was.
Yes. Equality. As in there is no difference between a gay and straight marriage in the eyes of the law. I accept that there are special rights given to married citizens. As I stated, I don't believe that this will change any time soon. They aren't being voted on or even considered as far as I know. Be that as it may, those are two separate issues.



Quote:
If it were self-evident then millenia hasn't seen it revealed your way. It's not self-evident at all—if there is actually such a thing. If it were, then there'd be no argument.
My way? Are you unaware of the substantial changes that the nature of a marriage has changed through human history?


Quote:
* this does not apply to people who are unable to procreate because they have a disability or due to artificial means....it means as it exists in state of nature.
Again, procreation is not in any way the sole worth of a marriage. The acts of a single person or group of persons do not have to benefit society to be worthwhile.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 27,881
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote