Frank wrote on Oct 8
th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Siblings who want to marry, can't.
First of all, 'siblings' aren't a minority in the same way as homosexual people are. And frankily, I think that's actually wrong; if siblings want to get married, they should be allowed to.
Frank wrote on Oct 8
th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Citizens of other countries can't sit in Parliament.
In this case, this applies to ALL foreign citizens. We haven't said 'oh, only citizens of America can sit in Parliament but not citizens of Japan. It applies to all citizens, so the law is consistent: all or nothing.
Frank wrote on Oct 8
th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The blind can't get a driver's licence.
This is silly example. Blind people driving is about public liability and the risk of causing death. SSM marriage doesn't cause anyone harm.
Frank wrote on Oct 8
th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Is it first class to be normal, heterosexual? Marriage is about the heterosexual nature of our species. That's what it has always been and everyone understood that, until 10 minutes ago.
The reason why marriage is about the 'heterosexual' nature of the species as you claim is because of the expectation that marriage will lead to the birth of children, right? Therefore, you also need to agree that heterosexual marriages that DON'T lead to the birth of children should not be considered marriage.
Frank wrote on Oct 8
th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Homosexuals are not just an alternative to heterosexuals, but as far as the species and societies are concerned, a complete dead end.
As I stated above, and as you have mentioned below, marriage is a legal institution - a contract between two consenting adults. The legal institution doesn't have any other condition, other than the consent of both individuals. It doesn't matter what about the 'alternative' or whether they are a 'dead-end' as you have said.
Frank wrote on Oct 8
th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The churches sanctify marriage but you can marry without ever going to church (so it is not an exclusively religious institution). It is an exclusively heterosexual institution. That is the universal common thread across cultures and times.
So, if we recognize marriages without going to church, then we should recognize same-sex marriages. If non-religious people can get married, then same-sex couples should be allowed to as well.
Again, marriage was exclusively a heterosexual institution because it was expected that people procreate, which was their 'social duty'. Today, no such expectation exists, and less and less people are procreating, so the prerequisite for marriage is no longer valid.
You want to be stupid so I can't really help you.
Procreation is an essential part of every society and so it is institutionalised in every society. But even without every married couple procreating, we are STILL a species made up of men and women. So every society has an interest in formalizing the relationship between the sexes, so women and girls are protected, men and boys are harnessed and anchored, the two sexes, complementing each other, are brought together to form a bridge between generations, whether they have their own kids or not. No society has any interest in formali sing homosexual relationships because they are defective and irrelevant to society. At best they are tolerated, at worst they are purged.
Homosexual relationships are a dead end in the broad sense as well as the narrow one of procreation. Homosexuals do not bring the sexes together, they do not complement each other, they do not create a microcosm in which the broader society and it's norms, values, interpersonal relations are fully and importantly created and reflected.
If there were no homosexuals, nothing would change. If there were no heterosexuals, everything would change and we would quickly disappear. That difference must not be ignored or downplayed by idiotic non-arguments like yours.