That was way too long, and seemingly irrelevant, so I only skimmed it, but...
What does indecent assault have to do with whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry?
Why do you think Hugh has a "hidden agenda" or is engaging in bullying? He simply thinks that people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexuality. He's not bullying you or anyone else - he's trying to debate with you...Which is hard as your previous attempts at supporting your position were IMO nonsensical (e.g. "purpose of the formal union known as marriage" is "the state of being married"? What?) and you keep avoiding questions and avoiding explaining your statements.
No one is bullying you or attacking you. This is a
discussion forum. If you post things with nothing to back them up (e.g. saying it's scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex etc. etc.) then expect people to debate those points with you and ask you
why...
As I asked before...
How is it clear that marriage cannot involve only one sex?
How is it scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex?
How is it physically impossible for marriage to involve only one sex?
What law are you talking about and why is it "beyond the scope of mankind"? Ideology does not sound irrelevant for you...
As for "it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change." I think it should be said... Please, enlighten us...
So what if the original definition is "compromised"?
What risk?
So marriage is purely for procreation?
My wife and I have no intention of having children. We married each other because we love each other and wanted a formal commitment. Is our marriage not real simply because we have no desire to procreate?
My maternal grandfather re-married many years after my maternal grandmother died. His second wife was too old to have children. Does that invalidate their marriage?
What about other opposite-sex couples who marry but either do not want to have children or can not have children? People who just don't want kids, people who are infertile, people who are too old, etc. Are they not really married? Should they not be allowed to get married?
As for the "sudden infatuation" of the gay community with marriage... I don't believe it is "sudden", and I don't see an issue with gay people simply wanting the same rights as everyone else.
---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
I am sorry to hear that you have been hurt in the past, but women have been hurt in the past (and men and women still are being hurt) - that doesn't stop heterosexual marriages continuing, why should it be a reason for homosexual marriages not to happen? You appear to be using the fact that someone hurt you to castigate an entire group of people, 99.99% of whom would not act that way, imho.
|
Indeed.
The existence of heterosexual indecent assault, heterosexual rape, and heterosexual spousal abuse doesn't mean that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed. Why should the existence of homosexual assault prohibit homosexual marriage?