Winnie,
You're right that my brother (who lives in New Zealand) legally entered into a civil union, not a marriage. The distinction seems silly to me. Their relationship is legally recognized, and it was blessed by clergy; how is that not marriage?
GIASI,
You see, you ARE equating "natural" with "acceptable." Cannibalism is clearly natural, since it occurs (in extreme circumstances) in nature. Of course, it is also immoral, because it infringes on other people's rights. This very nicely proves my point: "Is it natural" and "Is it acceptable?" are COMPLETELY unrelated questions.
I never suggested we start emulating animal behavior. *You're* the one who seems to be arguing that an act's "naturalness" (whatever that means, since apparently to you it doesn't mean "occurring in nature") has some bearing on its morality. Strangely enough, I've gotten into this same argument with dozens of people, and it always goes the same. Someone says homosexuality is unnatural; I say, "it is perfectly natural, although of course that has no bearing on its morality," and then that same person accuses me of suggesting we start emulating animal behavior. I never drew a connection between animal behavior and human morality.
Dweller,
How is homosexuality being rammed down your throat?
I wear a wedding ring, which tells everybody I meet that I am in a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Doesn't that shove my heterosexual lifestyle down people's throat? Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to do the same? I know scores of gay people, and none of them want to talk about their sex lives to strangers. They just want to have normal relationships and be treated like normal adults.
Super7,
Sorry; I wasn't paying much attention there, was I?
Butterfly,
Do you oppose marriage rights for people who are known to be infertile, and people who are past the age of menopause? Because if marriage is only for children, then you should. But if you acknowledge that there are benefits of marriage besides childrearing, then there is no reason not to extend those benefits to same-sex couples as well.
Why should that the basic rights of marriage that have nothing to do with children (like the right to visit your spouse in hospital, or to inherit from them) be "exclusive to heterosexual partners."
Winnie,
You're right that my brother (who lives in New Zealand) legally entered into a civil union, not a marriage. The distinction seems silly to me. Their relationship is legally recognized, and it was blessed by clergy; how is that not marriage?
GIASI,
You see, you ARE equating "natural" with "acceptable." Cannibalism is clearly natural, since it occurs (in extreme circumstances) in nature. Of course, it is also immoral, because it infringes on other people's rights. This very nicely proves my point: "Is it natural" and "Is it acceptable?" are COMPLETELY unrelated questions.
I never suggested we start emulating animal behavior. *You're* the one who seems to be arguing that an act's "naturalness" (whatever that means, since apparently to you it doesn't mean "occurring in nature") has some bearing on its morality. Strangely enough, I've gotten into this same argument with dozens of people, and it always goes the same. Someone says homosexuality is unnatural; I say, "it is perfectly natural, although of course that has no bearing on its morality," and then that same person accuses me of suggesting we start emulating animal behavior. I never drew a connection between animal behavior and human morality.
Dweller,
How is homosexuality being rammed down your throat?
I wear a wedding ring, which tells everybody I meet that I am in a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Doesn't that shove my heterosexual lifestyle down people's throat? Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to do the same? I know scores of gay people, and none of them want to talk about their sex lives to strangers. They just want to have normal relationships and be treated like normal adults.
Super7,
Sorry; I wasn't paying much attention there, was I?
Butterfly,
Do you oppose marriage rights for people who are known to be infertile, and people who are past the age of menopause? Because if marriage is only for children, then you should. But if you acknowledge that there are benefits of marriage besides childrearing, then there is no reason not to extend those benefits to same-sex couples as well.
Why should that the basic rights of marriage that have nothing to do with children (like the right to visit your spouse in hospital, or to inherit from them) be "exclusive to heterosexual partners."