Love and sex are not the same thing. You are free to love anyone you want, but since sexual behavior can produce contagious diseases it becomes the governments concern.
So what? Are you therefore proposing that any straight married couple should have their marriage dissolved if they contract a sexual disease? If they are likely to do so, based on their past history? That people who have sexually transmitted diseases should be unable to get married?
Well hopefully just as more and more people are changing their views on legal abortion as the science gets out, so the same will happen with homosexual behavior and return to biologically based marriage.
Hopefully not. Also, what science is this that shows that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?
For successful societies that has always been the foundation of marriage.
First: of course it hasn't.
Second: so what? Marriage has undergone many changes over the course of history. Your "we can't do it because we've never done it before" argument is invalid. And your implication that men marrying women - and not men marrying men or women marrying women - is beneficial to society is entirely unfounded.
How do you know there is nothing wrong with it? And why cant you marry your daughter if you abstain from sex or are sterilized? Or your son? Or your dog if you don't have sex with it? Or whatever?
How do I know there's nothing wrong with polygamy? Well, apart from the reservations I have about its in practice, I can't see anything wrong with it. There may well, of course, be things that I am unaware of which would show polygamy to be wrong. So what?
As for your other questions - why can't a man marry his sister, or son, or dog, or whatever - well, turn the question around, and you'll find that exactly the same questions might be asked by people who wanted to outlaw straight marriages: "Where does it stop?"if a
man can marry a
woman, why can't he marry his sister, or son, or dog? The answer is, of course, that we are not talking about dogs or plants or computers. We are talking about two people in love, and how there is no reason from banning them from getting married.
Who made up that rule? That is just your subjective opinion. How do you know that is not a real marriage? There have been many arranged marriages that were conducted without consent that turned into very happy and long marriages. Who are you to condemn them?
I'm sorry - are you saying to me that if two people get married without one of them consenting, it's a real marriage? You mean, one party can be forced to marry, and you're okay with that? Ugh. Yes, there are such things as arranged marriages. No, they are not necessarily the same thing as forced marriages. I am not insulting people who
did have forced marriages and managed to find happiness in any way when I say that forcing a person to marry is an immoral act, any more than the fact that a person
may fall in love with their rapist means that rape is okay. Can I point out that your reasoning is not only flawed, but frequently morally reprehensible?
Also, here:
Marriage Requirements Basics: Consent, Age, and Capacity - FindLaw
"Before a marital union is recognized by a state, there must be consent or agreement between the parties of the union to be married. For consent to exist, both parties must agree to the marriage and there must be no mistake as to the nature of the union; no force must be used upon either party to enter into the union."
Real marriage is based on biology and the nature of humans. Why are all humans anatomically heterosexual? What they think may count legally but it doesn't count as an objective reality. Nazi law said that jews were subhuman, but that doesnt mean that they really were. Laws of governments cannot create reality.
Okay. So shall we annul the marriages of any man and woman who wed but then don't have children within, say, five years? Or by the time they are no longer fertile? Or after they've stopped having sex regularly? Shall we ban infertile people from getting married at all? Perhaps we should require that every married couple produces at least three healthy babies (you know, in case one or two of them die accidentally).
No, marriage has had the same meaning just as long as the word bachelor. So calling gay marriage a marriage is an oxymoron.
Well, let's accept that they've both had their meanings for the same length of time. So what? A married bachelor is impossible because the two words are mutually exclusive. If, for some reason, we were to change the meaning of the word "bachelor" from "man who is not and has never been married" to, say, "man who has never been married before now" then a married bachelor would be quite possible (simply a man in his first marriage). And now that we've changed the definition of marriage from "
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a personal relationship" to what it currently is ("
the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship") we find that it's not only possible but rather anticlimactically simple.
No, there is no evidence for that interpretation.
Of course there is. It's the obvious interpretation of the Bible saying "you shall take slaves from the lands around you" and "kidnapping or man-stealing is a crime."
There are no captured slaves except in war. I don't deny that POWs can be involuntary slaves, just like the US Constitution allows.
Of course there are captured slaves outside of war. How do you think the black slaves were taken to America?
If it is early in the 50 year Jubilee period then yes it would be for life. Hebrew slaves could be freed every 6 years, but ALL the inhabitants of the land were given liberty in the year of Jubilee to quote the actual verse.
Except the other verses say that slaves shall belong to the master for life.
Yes and cutting a slaves back to ribbons produces permanent scars so that was forbidden.
It actually just says "if he loses an eye". So you want to take that as meaning "any mark upon his body"? Proof, please.
Most communist nations were founded by atheists.
True, because most communists were atheists. So what? Did they declare their new states in the name of atheism or Communism? Communism? Right, then, the fact that they were atheists is irrelevant. Being an atheist says just as much about you as being a theist: it has nothing to do with your morality. An atheist could be an anarchist, a communist or a humanist. A theist could worship God, Allah or Satan. You'll find that humanists have a very active conscience and believe in freedom of speech very strongly - and there were not a few nontheists involved in the creation of the USA. The Founding Fathers were motivated by humanist ideals. Which is why they very deliberately did
not establish the USA as a Christian nation.