Opponents of gay marriage keep proclaiming gays are "changing the definition of marriage", and gay supporters try to allay their fears by saying they aren't. What, exactly, is so bad about changing the definition of marriage? If we're changing it from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of two adults", so what?
shareI don't think of it as being changed at all, but instead is being expanded. To me changing the definition would involve changing what marriage entailes and the rights/benefits couples receive.
shareBecause it's unnatural.. Too men can't naturally reproduce and two women can't reproduce.. and they should be able to, if they desire a family.
I like cats named nightmare. I have a "nightmare" every night!
"Because it's unnatural.. Too men can't naturally reproduce and two women can't reproduce.. and they should be able to, if they desire a family."
Have you not been paying attention to the rulings in favor of same-sex marriage which have shot down that tired tripe?
[deleted]
'Because it's unnatural.. Too men can't naturally reproduce and two women can't reproduce.. and they should be able to, if they desire a family.'
---------------------------
You're not bigoted.
However, I think the argument is not necessarily about reproduction, but rather the essence of what it means to society as a whole. Everything that has given us structure is not always obsolete and old-fashioned.
The word "rights" is a vague term used by people, and why pro-supporters have that edge. There are many examples of rights either being legit or an act of self-entitlement, depending on what the agenda is. The same about political-correctness.
What I find offensive is calling somebody a 'troll/ bigot/ ignorant', when that is equally ignorant, because somebody disgrees with them. What happened to "tolerance"?
Another argument is that heterosexuals don't necessarily make better parents than homoesexuals, but it's not a parallel comparison. Who is to say that having both a male-female parental role model is not healthy/ valuable? I think some instutions(like marriage) have a natural innate significance, and not something that can be analyzed like a science project.
It's not a question of homosexuality being wrong; if that was the case then we would not have protection for any laws governing discrimination against homosexuals. Comparing job discrimination with marriage rights is not a fair comparison. A job is a thing-- not related to the aspect of the family unit
It has been changed before.
After all Abraham, Moses, David they all had more than one wife.
Nowadays Christianity doesn't accept polygamy any more. But the
fact is that it was once allowed and now it isn't. Therefore it changed.
I don't see why it shouldn't change again.