Posted: Apr 09, 2012 8:40 pm
UndercoverElephant wrote: I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.
What the fuck are you on about - generally, in the societal classes that have been worth anything, marriage has been an economical way of gaining influence and cementing alliances, child-bearing has often been performed on the side.
What extra do they gain by doing so?
RECOGNITION, but if you refuse to think of it in that way, I guess you have elected to blind yourself to the function symbols have in society.
Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership.
I think you don't think this is a serious argument! Or do you seriously thing infertile heterosexuals should be forbidden from marrying? Otherwise, you're judging homosexuals and heterosexuals with a different measuring rod. (I see this point already was raised, however, the inequal measuring rod is relevant - you're just trying to hide your prejudice and liking for discrimination behind a pseudo-argument, and that's fucking dishonest. Your answer to the previous time this objection was raised basically was 'yeah but marriage isn't only about raising children', but that kind of makes your entire fucking point moot.)