Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

Actually ignore my comment, I changed my mind. I'll go on and knock this out. First of all, if we keep copy and paste quoting each other, then our arguments are going to get progressively and painfully longer. I will simply reply to what you have said, and our readers can simply scroll up if they don't remember (or didn't really read) what I was referencing. I would advise you do the same, but that's up to you. 1. I did not say marriage has no value, I said that our society as a whole does not place the SAME value in it. I personally am a Christian, so I believe in the sanctity of marriage. What I said was to be taken at face value: that a lack of special value does not equal a good reason to prohibit. I also realize that we were both wrong. Homosexual marriage does have value to homosexuals, which are a part of our society, and hence, homosexual marriage does offer special societal value. 2. Marriage records predate reliable recorded history. It originated as a contract, usually arranged between families and to achieve economic goals (two rich families become unGodly wealthy and powerful through the marriage of their offspring). Are you suggesting that we return to this idea of marriage? http://www2.hu-berlin.de... This source does note that early governments expressed a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of procreation. Good, I have established for you that the government has a reason to like heterosexual marriage. Congratulations. This source also notes that early governments encouraged marriage and procreation, but that these same governments also encouraged homosexuality. They encouraged sexual expression period, and furthermore they recognized that people were going to be gay like it or not. Also, I don't think I have to prove that men subjugated women (that is in my source also) because most people know this is true. This is why we had a feminism movement to begin with. Now we can agree that the government has a vested interest in heterosexual marriages. However, this is irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage because: 1. Legalization/prohibition of homosexual marriages will have 0 effect on population. and 2. It would be unconstitutional. It is called discrimination. Discrimination is illegal in the workplace because it is unconstitutional. It would be illogical to say that discrimination is not relevant here. "Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family." Cultural and social values change. They have changed drastically in America just in the past 30 years. Humans have always procreated outside of marriage. They will continue to do so. It would be hard to prove or disprove that the institution of marriage it's-self has had any real impact on the overall population of the earth, but it is a fact that marriage is not necessary for sex, nor does procreation always develop into marriage. What do you mean the "concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals". I already quoted Webster's for you, there are Gay marriages happening today, so your theory then is proved false by the facts. Also, you are saying that your concept of marriage is the one everyone has to accept. Furthermore, who's concept of marriage are you using? Marriage is not the same today as it was 200 years ago, and you are trying to use the concept of marriage from 200 years ago to make an argument against homosexual marriage today. Furthermore, my source shows that even the governments that did share your concept of marriage still were far less hostile to homosexuality, (I would guess because even they realized that prohibition only increases rebellion and the occurrence of the act which the government is trying to prohibit). We have proven that prohibition has these adverse effects on the human psyche, so from your point of view, it makes more sense to NOT prohibit homosexual marriage so we don't get more flaming homosexuals (please realize I am using logical reasoning not stating my opinion). You are basically saying we should oppress homosexuals by discriminating against them because we should all accept your view that marriage exists solely for procreation. You have shown (actually, I have shown) that governments have a vested in procreation, for which marriage is not necessary; nor does marriage guarantee procreation. Now do I need to post a copy of our constitution as a source, or do you realize that discrimination IS illegal because it IS wrong and to prohibit homosexuals from getting married IS discrimination just like if I refused to hire a completely qualified person strictly because they were homosexual? Also, to say that I must prove that homosexual marriage should be legalized does not make sense. it first had to be prohibited before we could talk about it being legalized, and the prohibition it's-self if unconstitutional, which is why many states are repealing their stance on the issue. If anything, you should be trying to prove why we should keep it illegal, and saying that only heterosexuals can bear children is kind-of just stating the obvious though irrelevant.