Since it's your claim that homosexuality does not benefit mankind, and now that you have expanded the meaning to include economic and other non biological factors. Prove homosexuality doesn't benefit economy, or community. Oh...so marriage is a way to diminish the spread of disease. That is an argument for same sex marriage. Here you are mistaking Corrilation with causation again. There is no "prone-ness" or propensity for homosexuals to contract HIV. There is a higher rate of infection only within a given population. If you look at India or Africa the higher rate of infection is among heterosexuals. That really negates any propensity as it relates to sexual orientation. There is a stronger Corrilation to culture in the United States as opposed to which gender you prefer. Now Maccabee, you can lie to yourself and be fooled but you won't fool me. You absolutely stated not just once but for a second time just above that that a high instance of HIV infections among a group of people regardless of all variables indicating otherwise, is caused by homosexuality. In fact stating that Corrilation as a causation is the basis for your entire argument. You wither misunderstood what I said or you purpusefully misrepresented it. Either way I'll correct you. First you are absolutely wrong in your first statement. Inbreeding most certainly is directly caused by incest. If Offspring is imbred, it is because of their parents were incestuous. There is no other way to inbreed Further 100% of inbred children have incestuous parents without exception. So, to better explain to you how your argument is nullified I will put it in the simplest terms. A result of an inbred child is 100% of the time caused by incest. Results of a person infected with HIV is not 100% of the time caused by someone engaging in homosexuality.
That isn't really the same thing. You are just pointing to a mass killer that happened to be atheist. Islam alone has an estimated 290 million killings.
You are denying science by moving the goalposts! Suddenly the theist position swerves from homosexuality being a "choice" to now being some imaginary definition of a "true homosexual" whatever that might be! If homosexuality is a "choice" then those fruitflies are exercising their "choice" by exhibiting SSB with other males, right? But now you come up with this "true homosexual" definition that refutes the theist concept that homosexuality is a "choice". And it was Dixon who alleged that there is no "homosexuality" in the bible, only "homosexual behavior". So now you need to clarify what you mean by "true homosexuals" and how that fits into the theist position that all homosexuality is a "choice".
"It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[112] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
Yes, marriage was considered as a means to perpetuate and enhance family power through children and alliance. And in this context such marriages were arranged by the families based upon a strategic evaluation rather than any personal affection between bride and groom. As such a homosexual marriage was not rejected on moral grounds, but for practical considerations So Absent abrahamic religion, Pre or extramarital Homosexual relations did not carry moral judgements I suppose they might even have been preferable since it eliminated the possibility of bastard children that might muddy inheritance rights And in any case, most people in our society do not sign on to the historical role of marriage Which is to say that we no longer consider that marriage should be an arranged family alliance where bride and groom have little input. these days we no longer consider a childless marriage to be pointless
Yeah, the consideration that only men and women produce children. BIOLOGY! In ancient Mesopotamia, marriage was similar to the purchase of a slave, except in the case of a bride, if she didn't produce children the husband was due a refund of his purchase price. AND marriage in the US was never limited to men and women on moral grounds. It was always the biology of procreation. It is a fiction of the courts that marriage was limited to men and women as some kind of moral judgement of homosexuality.
Some gays desperately seek normalcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtually_Normal while some reject normalcy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Normal_(book)
Ok I really just do not get the t.... It is a fact that there is no legal connection between children and marriage A marriage license has zero requirement that the couple have any intention, or even capability to have children. You can be 95 and well past menopause and still get married. You can be sterile and still get married you can prefer to remain childless and still get married, or you can have children without being married. There is literally no basis to legally forbid gay marriage
I can accept that the basis for opposite sex marriage was biological. The basis for expanding it to same sex couples is liberty.
I'd rather see the govt remove itself from marriage and let it revert to a belief based event and there are contracts in place for joint property ownership. If you wish to discuss liberty then the single person has been and continues to be the victim of discrimination Consider Social Security. A person who works for an employer today, and works for 40 years and earns an average of $100,000 will at today's rates have paid $620,000 into Social Security. If that person should die, the money simply vanishes If that person is married, the money (payments) can go to the spouse if it's greater than what the spouse receives there is nothing fair about the govt involvement in marriage and adding to it, those who live the gay lifestyle, does not solve the problem.
The goal wasn't too solve "unfairness" it was to gain liberties. You want fairness live in a socialist country.
Other than the 50 state laws similar to this one. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if: (1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
The evidence is its complete absence in nature. Sure, lots of animals engage in homosexual behavior but they mate with the opposite sex. - - - Updated - - - Tax breaks and governmental entitlements aren't liberties.
No, the ability to enter into a contract worth who you choose is. The government diesnt have to do such things.
Nope. That would be like arguing that our limitation to just one marriage per spouse is a moral judgment of Mormonism, because it was the Mormons who wanted multiple marriages in the US. Absurd!
You have always been free to enter such contracts. Many gays did before gay marriage was made legal You just didnt get the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that accompanied a marriage.
Sounds like an argument against entitlements. Seems most people would prefer to have those rather than do away with marriage.
paternity statute, not a marriage one. procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry. It's why infertile, geriatric, paralyzed and same sex couples can marry. - - - Updated - - - yes they are, as they are attached to marriage.
