A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

[Caprice]

By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term.

How does changing the meaning of a term devalue it?

Marriage is more than a "term", it is a concept. The concept of marriage is devalued every single time someone gets a divorce or has an extramarital affair, just as much as it will be devalued if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Your entire argument boils down to "It's bad because it's a change."

I don't personally think there is anything wrong with that line of thinking.

 

[-Truth-]

Marriage is more than a "term", it is a concept. The concept of marriage is devalued every single time someone gets a divorce or has an extramarital affair, just as much as it will be devalued if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

I don't personally think there is anything wrong with that line of thinking.

I totally agree with what you are saying. We need to go back to when marriage was pure. We need to go back to when women were a form of trade between families.

The family of the groom had to pay a bride price to the bride's family for the right to marry the daughter. In some cultures, dowries and bride prices are still demanded today. In both cases, the financial transaction takes place between the groom (or his family) and the bride's family; the bride has no part in the transaction and often no choice in whether to participate in the marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

[Caprice]

I totally agree with what you are saying. We need to go back to when marriage was pure. We need to go back to when women were a form of trade between families.

So what you're saying is that because it has changed in the past it should change in the future, whereas I don't necesarily believe that line of thinking is neccesarily accurate.

I do not believe that the above-mentioned method was necesarily mandated by the bible so I really couldn't care less about how they managed marriages back then... and another point to consider, it was still a man and a woman wasn't it?

People are going to resist this change because many of them percieve it to be a negative change. Not necesarily because they think it is evil, but because they think the change violates their own rights. I've tried to explain this concept to people so many times but no one understands it so I have kinda gotten tired of trying, just keep in mind that just because you don't see the harm that doesn't mean that they don't percieve there to be harm.

 

[-Truth-]

So what you're saying is that because it has changed in the past it should change in the future, whereas I don't necesarily believe that line of thinking is neccesarily accurate.

I do not believe that the above-mentioned method was necesarily mandated by the bible so I really couldn't care less about how they managed marriages back then... and another point to consider, it was still a man and a woman wasn't it?

People are going to resist this change because many of them percieve it to be a negative change. Not necesarily because they think it is evil, but because they think the change violates their own rights. I've tried to explain this concept to people so many times but no one understands it so I have kinda gotten tired of trying, just keep in mind that just because you don't see the harm that doesn't mean that they don't percieve there to be harm.

There has always been same sex marriage all through history in many different cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Here is the way I see it.

I see it that many Christians believe that marriage is a Christian thing. To me it seems that there have been all types of marriage all through history depending on culture, religion, or what not.

Today it seems many Christians want to define marriage to be a Christians institution with no regard to other beliefs or cultures. Many Christians seem to be wanting the “patent” on marriage. Yet many don’t know the history of marriage and how it has evolved as cultures and societies have.

I guess what I am saying is marriage comes in many forms. It always has, so as long as no one is getting hurt let them have the rights that other loving couples have.

 

[Volos]

This works both ways as their is no proof that homosexual marriage doesn't harm marriage and this is the point i was making as, if their is no evidence either way then you cannot say that homosexual marriage doesn't cause harm.

as pointed out several times in this thread I have not made any claim about the harm or lack there of that legal recognition of same sex marriage may or may not induce. What has been noted time and time again is that those who are making the claim that somehow legal recognition of same sex marriage does in some way harm marriage or the family or society have been unable to identify any concrete examples of this supposed harm.



Attempting to demand proof of a negative claim is just further evidence that the claim that legal recognition of same sex marriage does in some way harm marriage or the family or society is unfounded. One cannot prove a negative and the way you have attempted to force the argument shows you are fully aware of this. Much like demanding proof that invisible intangible unicorns form Pluto are not controlling the top officials of the Post Office. The claim itself is ridiculous but there is no way to prove that invisible intangible unicorns form Pluto are NOT controlling the top officials of the Post Office. Does this mean someone can claim that invisible intangible unicorns form Pluto ARE in fact controlling the top officials of the Post Office and citing lack of proof that these evil unicorns do not in fact exist? Of course not. Just like when you demand proof that legal recognition does NOT somehow harm marriage entitles you to claim that since this negative cannot be proven your claim of harm must be valid.

You are assuming that unless evidence is provided for homosexual unions being harmful then they are not harmful which is bad logic

as noted it is your logic that is problematic.



If you wish to claim that somehow legal recognition of same sex marriage is somehow harmful to marriage why is it unreasonable to ask for specifics? Why can you (or anybody else here in this thread) not provide an actual concrete example of just how someone marriage will he harmed because of legal recognition of same sex marriage?

a false negative doesn't equal a positive

but that is the basis of your post. You are claiming a positive by demanding proof of a false negative.

you could easily turn this around and say that unless there is proof that homosexual unions aren't harmful then they are harmful both these positions are equally invalid logically.

however no one is making anything resembling this claim. What is being discussed is the complete lack of concrete examples form those making the claim that legal recognition of same sex marriage is somehow harmful to marriage.

In order to come to a conclusion either someone has to prove that homosexual unions are harmful

which no one has

or that homosexual unions are not harmful

please read the above about the impossibility of proving a negative

you cannot say that unless homosexual unions harm a single individual (Clem) then they are non harmful in all cases.

but one can say that those making the claim that legal recognition of same sex marriage have failed to provide even a single concrete example of how marriage in general much less Clem’s marriage specifically is harmed.
What can be said is that logically either legal recognition of same sex marriage is harmful to opposite sex marriage or it is not. If the positive statement (legal recognition of same sex marriage is harmful to opposite sex marriage) cannot be supported then there is no reason for anyone to either assume or to believe that it is harmful. Because a negative claim (legal recognition of same sex marriage is NOT harmful to opposite sex marriage) cannot ever be proven noting about the positive statement can be inferred.

 

[Caprice]

There has always been same sex marriage all through history in many different cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

The third line of your source states:
"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page for more information."

If you wish to discuss something like that, I'd rather discuss it on the basis of something that is proven to be accurate.

Do you have any other sources to support your claim that homosexual marriage (not homosexual relations in general) have been an accepted concept in any society, as this article is attempting to suggest? I'm willing to read them, I just think you should reconsider using a site such as wikipedia to discuss such things.

 

[Volos]

http://training.seer.cancer.gov/mod...epdt_intro.html

thank you for the lesson in basic biology.



What the point of it was I cannot say.



In post #112 you stated:

A marriage relationship between two men is completely different from that between a man and a woman

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10656182&postcount=112

to which I asked just how and what evidence do you have for this claim.



Basic biology is not an answer to how my marriage is “completely different” form say your marriage or my parents marriage.

Men and woman think and interact differently
http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp

I don’t think anyone is claiming otherwise.



Again how is this evidence that marriage between two persons of the same gender is “completely different” form marriage between two persons of opposite genders?

http://www.cyberparent.com/intimate...differences.htm

your link lead to a very nice page making general statements about how many men and many women act and think about love and intimacy. Again how is this evidence that marriage between two persons of the same gender is “completely different” form marriage between two persons of opposite genders?

http://inside.bard.edu/academic/specialproj/darling/adolesce.htm

a nice page about the challenges that teenagers in our society face. I don’t think anybody is saying that growing up is in not challenging. But nothing here supports your claim that “A child needs both a mother and a father not two mothers or two fathers”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

a rather misleading news article

example:

“The report, by sociology professors at the University of Southern California, says that that, contrary to earlier assertions, children of same-sex parents exhibit significant differences when compared to children raised by heterosexual couples.”

not exactly true. Stacey and Biblarz completed an extensive survey of nearly thirty studies of children being raised by same sex couples dating from the mid-seventy’s to today. The “significant differences” that this news article speaks of can be read in the actually published study (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter by Stacey and Biblarz in the April 2001 issue of the American Sociological Review.

And what “significant differences” is the article talking about?

How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter by Stacey and Biblarz in the April 2001 issue of the American Sociological Review: “daughters with lesbian mothers reported higher aspirations to nontraditional gender occupations (Steckel 1987). For example, in R. Green et al. (1986), 53 percent (16 out of 30) of the daughters of lesbians aspired to careers such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, and astronaut, compared with only 21 percent (6 of 28) of the daughters of heterosexual mothers.”



Shocking.



From the FOX news article:



"The pervasiveness of social prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against lesbians and gay men… exerts a powerful policing affect on the basic terms of psychological research and public discourse on the significance of parental sexual orientation," Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz write in a report in the American Sociological Review.”



Which if read out of context like this sounds very damming of previous research. If only that is what the Stacey and Biblarz were talking about. What Stacey and Biblarz were criticizing was a single paper presented from a “Christian perspective”



From (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter by Stacey and Biblarz in the April 2001 issue of the American Sociological Review: “In March 2000, a paper presented at a “Revitalizing Marriage” conference at Brigham Young University assailed the quality of studies that had been cited to support the efficacy of lesbigay parenting (Lerner and Nagai 2000). Characterizing the research methods as “dismal,” Lerner and Nagai claimed that “the methods used in these studies were sufficiently flawed so that these studies could not and should not be used in legislative forums or legal cases to buttress any arguments on the nature of homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting” (p. 3).” Which is the social prejudice and institutionalized discrimination that limits the AMOUNT of research done on gay and lesbian parenting.





From the FOX news article: “A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.”

And what is this “significant number?

6.

that is right six.



From the FOX news article: “For example, one 1996 study concluded that "The majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified themselves as heterosexual in adulthood." Stacey and Biblarz say the finding is "technically accurate" but it "deflects analytic attention from the rather sizable differences in sexual atitudes and behaviors that the study actually reports."

Actually the study in question said “The commonly held assumption that children brought up by lesbian mothers will themselves grow up to be lesbian or gay is not supported by the findings of the study: the majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual in adulthood, and there was no statistically significant difference between young adults from lesbian and heterosexual family backgrounds with respect to sexual orientation. Golombok, Susan and Fiona Tasker. 1996. “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families.” Developmental Psychology 32:3–11.

Stacey and Biblarz were criticizing the rigid parameters of Golombok and Tasker’s definitions of homosexual and heterosexual declining to measure bisexuality.





All of which is interesting but what FOX news declines to site is the conclusion of Stacey and Bublarz:

“the results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren)”



the Stacey and Biblarz article:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=276907





all of which sidetraced awway form yoru attemtp to claim that somehow “a child is harmed by having two parents of the same gender”

the conclusion of Stacey and Biblarz I quoted above says this is not the case.

 

[Volos]

People are going to resist this change because many of them percieve it to be a negative change. Not necesarily because they think it is evil, but because they think the change violates their own rights.

Maybe the probelm with explaining it to peopel is the fact that no ones rights would be violated with legal recognition of same sex marriage.

I've tried to explain this concept to people so many times but no one understands it so I have kinda gotten tired of trying, just keep in mind that just because you don't see the harm that doesn't mean that they don't percieve there to be harm.

So you are claiming that legal recogniton of same sex marriage harms opposite sex marriage. Yet you have not or apparently cannot provided any specifics as to just what this ‘harm’ is.



Basically you are syaing that no one will be able to see this “harm” no one will be able to identify this “harm” but you just KNOW that this unknowable and inidentifyable harm will be the result.

 

[-Truth-]

The third line of your source states:
"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page for more information."

If you wish to discuss something like that, I'd rather discuss it on the basis of something that is proven to be accurate.

Do you have any other sources to support your claim that homosexual marriage (not homosexual relations in general) have been an accepted concept in any society, as this article is attempting to suggest? I'm willing to read them, I just think you should reconsider using a site such as wikipedia to discuss such things.

http://copernicus.subdomain.de/Same-sex_marriage

http://en.freepedia.org/Same-Sex_Marriage.html

http://www.tutorgig.co.uk/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=same-sex_marriage

 

[Caprice]

Maybe the probelm with explaining it to peopel is the fact that no ones rights would be violated with legal recognition of same sex marriage.

You are again making an asumption. I must also mention that I find it difficult to take you seriously when you refuse to really "listen" to what I have to say.

So you are claiming that legal recogniton of same sex marriage harms opposite sex marriage. Yet you have not or apparently cannot provided any specifics as to just what this ‘harm’ is.

The fact that the harm is something that the individual feels / percieves makes it difficult for someone who is not affected by that "harm" to understand. Someone like you who assumes there is no harm done will never see or feel the harm, while someone like me who disagrees will feel it and never be able to truely explain it to someone who shares your point of view.

Basically you are syaing that no one will be able to see this “harm” no one will be able to identify this “harm” but you just KNOW that this unknowable and inidentifyable harm will be the result.

No, what I'm saying is those who are not "harmed" by the idea of same sex marriage will not see the problem it causes those who are "harmed" by it. I do not "KNOW" anything. Harm, offence, wrongness, all of these things in the human context are subjective. You say gay marriage doesn't affect me as a non-gay person. I disagree. Do you care? Nope. Do I care that you disagree with me? Nope. It is subjective. Someone's "rights" will be trampled on, it doesn't matter what the end decision is.

There is no way to keep everyone happy on this issue, so realistically speaking you cannot appease the rights of everyone. So I guess it comes down to "who are we as a nation going to alienate today".

 

[Caprice]

http://copernicus.subdomain.de/Same-sex_marriage

"For same-sex marriage proponents, the above achieves equalization of the male-male, female-female, and male-female relationship. Being able to marry whomever they choose is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government."

It can only be considered a "civil right" if you consider homosexuals to be a "minority" or "ethnic" group. I don't see it this way. I see homosexuality as an abnormality, not necesarily wrong in and of itself but not warranting special treatment -- for instance, my friend Chris and I could not share my health insurance policy just because we lived together for a period of time, but oh if we are homosexual (i.e. we have a sexual relationship and we get married) oh then it is okay. I consider this to be an abuse of "the system" and would rather give up the privelege to share such things with my wife in our heterosexual marriage than to just willingly and freely let this sort of abuse occur.

I must also point out that some of the data there is keyed word-for-word on the wikipedia page thus I feel the need to dismiss it. Sounds to me like someone saw that and copied and pasted it into wikipedia. I can't give any credit to something like that, and even if I would, I couldn't care less what they did in China and such, they are not here.

http://en.freepedia.org/Same-Sex_Marriage.html

A repeat of almost the exact same text on a different page.

http://www.tutorgig.co.uk/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=same-sex_marriage

Geeze, again the same text pretty much. I don't care how many sources this comes from if one admits that it is disputed then I will not give the others more credit just because they don't.

 

[Sphere]

You say gay marriage doesn't affect me as a non-gay person. I disagree.

Good, please explain how gay marriage will affect you in a negative manner. Please explain how two person's private business will negatively effect you. Extra points if you can do this without making ridiculous assumptions of "downfall of society" or heck, even mentioning the bible. Lets put that nonsense aside. How will two gays getting married, directly effect you, and your family and/or friends in a negative way.

Do you care? Nope. Do I care that you disagree with me? Nope. It is subjective. Someone's "rights" will be trampled on, it doesn't matter what the end decision is.

Denying a group of people from equality is not your right, so tough break there.

 

[-Truth-]

I must also point out that some of the data there is keyed word-for-word on the wikipedia page thus I feel the need to dismiss it. Sounds to me like someone saw that and copied and pasted it into wikipedia. I can't give any credit to something like that, and even if I would, I couldn't care less what they did in China and such, they are not here.

I supplied info from 4 different online encyclopedias to support my claim.

Even if you don’t accept the online encyclopedias I supplied you can at least supply documentation showing how I am wrong in my claim instead of just saying they are not reputable without a proof. That would be brushing on Ad Hominem.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Slippery slope is pretty invalid. For tax reasons polygamy will never fly. Animals can't consent to a contract. Incest is dangerous due to birth defects and the like. Gay marriage produces no such arguments against it. Just as rampant adultery and divorce wont affect my future marriage, neither would gays.

 

[Forever42]

Geeze, again the same text pretty much. I don't care how many sources this comes from if one admits that it is disputed then I will not give the others more credit just because they don't.

I registered just to respond to this.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows anyone to dispute an article. If someone is against same-sex marriage, they can dispute the article and automatically it is listed as "disputed." It doesn't mean it actually is disputed scientifically, just that it's someone's opinion.

I can't post the link since I am a new user. But if you click on the link on Wikipedia that says the same-sex marriage article is disputed, it will explain why. Near the bottom is a list of other disputed articles. This includes such articles such as the one about the Gettysburg Address.

Edit: also, the only thing that's disputed in the article is whether to include "platonic love" and "asexual same sex marriage" in the article. Nothing about the facts within the article itself.

 

[Nathan David]

Fallacy. Blacks breed true genetically; their ethnic characteristics were passed from one generation to the next. Gays are abberations (in the sense that they are not likely to pass their orientation on to successive generations even if they breed biologically, nor do they usually come from parents who are gay).

Hence, since blacks and whites are capable of reproducing their charactertistics, and since they are capable of blending their characteristics, there is a commonality between the two races that overrides laws and social mores.

Since gays do not reproduce their characteristics, and since a blending of a gay person and a straight person does not produce a bisexual, gays have no inherent right to marry.

It makes no difference if any particular couple chooses to have children or not. We are talking about genetic classifications; gays have never demonstrated an ability to pass their orientation along to their biolgical offspring in anything other than standard statistical deviations from the norm.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the issue of marriage. Marriage should be about love, not reproduction. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you invent a time machine and go back to the 10th century when such views were more socially accepted.

 

[Volos]

You are again making an asumption. I must also mention that I find it difficult to take you seriously when you refuse to really "listen" to what I have to say.

Then please correct my misinformed assumption. Enlighten me (and the rest of us) Please tell us just what rights you as a heterosexual will loose with the legal recognition of same sex marriage.

The fact that the harm is something that the individual feels / percieves makes it difficult for someone who is not affected by that "harm" to understand.

People can understand loss and harm without ever experiencing it themselves. It is called empathy.

Someone like you who assumes there is no harm done will never see or feel the harm, while someone like me who disagrees will feel it and never be able to truely explain it to someone who shares your point of view.

Once again I must point out that I have not made any claims on this thread as to the harm (perceived, tangible or otherwise) or the lack of harm with the legal recognition of same sex marriage.


[qutoe] No, what I'm saying is those who are not "harmed" by the idea of same sex marriage will not see the problem it causes those who are "harmed" by it. I do not "KNOW" anything. Harm, offence, wrongness, all of these things in the human context are subjective. [/quote]
Yet no one (at least on this thread) has been able to identify just how they, their marriages, their families and so on will actually be harmed. Not one tangible example of this supposed harm other than your perception of harm.

you say gay marriage doesn't affect me as a non-gay person. I disagree. Do you care? Nope. Do I care that you disagree with me? Nope. It is subjective. Someone's "rights" will be trampled on, it doesn't matter what the end decision is.

Actually I said nothing of the sort.

I have pointed out that those claiming harm have failed repeatedly to provide tangible examples of this harm.

The best I can gather is that you believe that legal recognition will somehow make you uncomfortable. But is the personal perceived discomfort of a few individuals reason to deny equal rights to all people?

There is no way to keep everyone happy on this issue, so realistically speaking you cannot appease the rights of everyone. So I guess it comes down to "who are we as a nation going to alienate today".

Once again I must ask you just which of your “rights” legal recognition of same sex marriage would “trample”?

 

[Volos]

It can only be considered a "civil right" if you consider homosexuals to be a "minority" or "ethnic" group. I don't see it this way.

Do you have any reason other than personal prejudice to pretend that somehow homosexuals are not a minority?

I see homosexuality as an abnormality, not necesarily wrong in and of itself but not warranting special treatment --

exactly how are equal rights special?

[qutoe] for instance, my friend Chris and I could not share my health insurance policy just because we lived together for a period of time, but oh if we are homosexual (i.e. we have a sexual relationship and we get married) oh then it is okay. [/quote]
And if Chris were female (Christine) then the same thing would apply. You could not share medical insurance coverage if you simply lived together yet if you and Christine got married (which is your legal right to do) then you could.

I consider this to be an abuse of "the system" and would rather give up the privelege to share such things with my wife in our heterosexual marriage than to just willingly and freely let this sort of abuse occur.

Simply because you married your wife to get a few benefits does not mean anyone else bases their marriages on something so frivolous.


[qutoe] I must also point out that some of the data there is keyed word-for-word on the wikipedia page thus I feel the need to dismiss it. Sounds to me like someone saw that and copied and pasted it into wikipedia. I can't give any credit to something like that, and even if I would, I couldn't care less what they did in China and such, they are not here. [/quote] but was not there a request for such information. Woudl the original source be more tangible? or is it the problem that the information contradicts prior claims about the exclusivity of marriage to heterseuxals?

 

[Volos]

I registered just to respond to this.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows anyone to dispute an article. If someone is against same-sex marriage, they can dispute the article and automatically it is listed as "disputed." It doesn't mean it actually is disputed scientifically, just that it's someone's opinion.

I can't post the link since I am a new user. But if you click on the link on Wikipedia that says the same-sex marriage article is disputed, it will explain why. Near the bottom is a list of other disputed articles. This includes such articles such as the one about the Gettysburg Address.

Edit: also, the only thing that's disputed in the article is whether to include "platonic love" and "asexual same sex marriage" in the article. Nothing about the facts within the article itself.

Welcome to the forums Forever42.



You make some excellent points…if only everyone actually looked at what they were trying to criticize.

 

[Caprice]

Then please correct my misinformed assumption. Enlighten me (and the rest of us) Please tell us just what rights you as a heterosexual will loose with the legal recognition of same sex marriage.

Without a common frame of reference it is impossible to discuss this subject in a manner that you would accept. That doesn't make me any less right or wrong, it just means that no matter what I say I know you'll dismiss me as tho I'm retarded.

People can understand loss and harm without ever experiencing it themselves. It is called empathy.

I'm not entirely sure I understand how "empathy" will help anyone understand things of a spiritual nature when he or she is decidedly closed minded to such things.

Yet no one (at least on this thread) has been able to identify just how they, their marriages, their families and so on will actually be harmed. Not one tangible example of this supposed harm other than your perception of harm.

I have pointed out that those claiming harm have failed repeatedly to provide tangible examples of this harm.

The best I can gather is that you believe that legal recognition will somehow make you uncomfortable. But is the personal perceived discomfort of a few individuals reason to deny equal rights to all people?

The harm has nothing to do with individual discomfort, and I somehow doubt it is just "a few individuals" when 11 states managed to pass gay marriage ban amendments on November 2nd.

Once again I must ask you just which of your “rights” legal recognition of same sex marriage would “trample”?

For the lack of better terminology to use, the same right that easy divorce tramples, my right to have a relationship that means something in the eyes of God. Marriage is a sacrement and I don't care what has happened in the past or in other countries, where I am today I'll argue it to my death that marriage is between a man and woman because marriage was created for the safe and logical continuance of the human species in a monogamous manner contrary to what is natural for almost all creatures on earth.

Do you have any reason other than personal prejudice to pretend that somehow homosexuals are not a minority?

If you consider the fact that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, prejudice, then I guess not.

exactly how are equal rights special?

Equal rights my fanny.

And if Chris were female (Christine) then the same thing would apply. You could not share medical insurance coverage if you simply lived together yet if you and Christine got married (which is your legal right to do) then you could.

What I'm trying to point out is sexuality should not be a basis for determining marriage. Marriage is what it is, it does not need to be redefined. Just because it may have been redefined in the past is not reason enough to redefine it again and again or what point is there in even having it at all?

Simply because you married your wife to get a few benefits does not mean anyone else bases their marriages on something so frivolous.

I think actually it would be more accurate to say that I married my wife so she could get a few benefits, although that isn't really accurate. What I'd really like to understand is what function marriage serves to those who do not see it as a religious act.

but was not there a request for such information. Woudl the original source be more tangible?

Basically what I'd like to see is something that isn't the exact word for word statement that is on the other page, regardless of the reasons that it is disputed on that page.

or is it the problem that the information contradicts prior claims about the exclusivity of marriage to heterseuxals?

Since I have no prior information or claims to form a bias, there is no reason that the information would contradict said bias.