Sam wrote: >>People made the same argument about civil rights for Blacks in the 60's >>and woman's sufferage in the '20s. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The >>American culture will never be "ready" for it -- they will get used to it. >> > You're comparing the use of the term marriage to the inequality of > blacks. There's no comparison.
I disagree. We're discriminating agains a subsection of the population based on something they have no control over. I think there is a comparison. Moreover, the point I was making is that the majority, at least in the South, didn't want equality for blacks, but we still made the legal changes that were necessary to promote the cultural change. >>Okay, I'm going to take a bit of offense here. > > You're right, bad example. How about polygamy? Why can't I have > multiple spouses? If they all agree don't we have the right? *Much* better example. For the record, I think we should allow polygamous marriages, but that's an argument for a different day (or at least thread). :-) >>If the clerk asked you if you wanted a marriage or civil union, you have >>a choice. Having the choice taken away from you is what's hurtful. > > Having choices are nice but not always an option. Sometimes I want to > use the ladies room but I'm not allowed. As far as I know, it's not illegal for a man to use the women's room. It just gets you kicked out of the bar. I could be wrong on that. >>Marriages, again esp. among nobles, were often to link houses or for >>other sociopolitical reasons, not for love or anything fun like that. > > That's my point, society dictates marriage as a bond between man and > women even back then. The point was that homosexual behaviors weren't viewed the same back then as they are now. If you were to suggest to the average man in America today that being on the recieving end of anal sex was just a friendly gesture, I think you'd probably get punched. :-) I'll grant the point that marriages were, as far as I know, between women and men in Greece and Rome. However, it seems to me that, in a political marriage, the point is to have a kid to permanently link the families, nations, whatever. So arranged, political marriages are special case. To argue, in this day and time, that marriages are solely for the purpose of reproduction is, in my opinion, kinda absurd. Which brings us back to the notion that the idea of marriage has gone through many changes over the years. Why not this one? --Ben ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:173608 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
