Convince me

[Dorian Gray]

You can't justify a secular law on a religious basis. There are practices that hurt Americans that are allowed, while gay marriages won't hurt a bit.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Well I really caused a stir the last time I tried to respond to this issue. What the hell, Ill stick my head in one more time.

Please note:

1. The purpose of this post is NOT to denigrate gays and lesbians. My post is serious and not meant to compare one group with another or to make value judgements of any group. My reason for the post is that I have grown up with an understanding of what constitutes marriage and that definition is being challenged, ok then let's understand what is the definition of marriage and more importantly, why?.
   
2. This post should not in any way be construed as an argument. Please don't bring up slippery slope. I make NO claims. This includes any claims as to the effects of granting gays and lesbians full rights of marriage and all of the privileges and rights associated with marriage.
   [/list=1] That being said--
   
   I think it comes down simply to, "what is marriage?" If marriage is a union between two or more consenting adults then lesbians and gays should be entitled to it.
   
   If marriages isn't simply a union between a man and a woman then it ought to include adult members of an immediate family, (a) polygamists, (b) bigamists or any other union or group that consists of consenting adults.
   
   • Certain polygamists with a religious bent have a nasty habit of marrying very young girls 12 - 15 and often against the express will of those girls. Furthermore, since this is below the age of consent it clearly offends our laws and most individuals who believe in the right of self governance. It is simply illegal. (I happen to think such men that force a young girl into marriage should at best have his testicles removed and at worst have his genitalia removed)
     
   • Bigamy that is used for the sole purpose to defraud another is clearly illegal. But what can a reasonable case of "harm" be made in favor of a woman that finds that she has entered in such a union?
     [/list=a] I will exclude dead people, animals or inanimate objects since smarter people than myself assure me that mutual consent is intrinsic to marriage and it is demonstrable that dead people, animals and inanimate objects cannot be said to enjoy rights and privileges that living humans can. So denying marriage to a broom does not deprive the broom of any rights that it would otherwise have whereas denying marriage to gays or lesbians deprive them of many rights such as hospital visitation, medical benefits, etc. Of course this raises the question of "why not civil unions instead of marriage?" Answer, the title "marriage" is itself a "right" since it is a title that is bestowed by the state.
     
     Sorry to answer a question with more questions but it would be helpful to understand the nature of the question.
     
     Is there a logical reason why marriage cannot be defined as a union between more than two people?
     
     Is there a logical reason why marriage cannot include blood relatives of immediate family members (let's assume for the sake of argument that any such heterosexual relations are between sterile adults)?
     
     Is there a logical reason why marriage cannot include bigamy (so long as the reason is not to defraud)?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Is there a logical reason why marriage cannot be defined as a union between more than two people?

Is there a logical reason why marriage cannot include blood relatives of immediate family members (let's assume for the sake of argument that any such heterosexual relations are between sterile adults)?

Is there a logical reason why marriage cannot include bigamy (so long as the reason is not to defraud)?

Maybe I'm letting my liberal freak-flag fly a little too high on this, but...

The only things I see against blood relative marriage is the potential for birth defects in the children. If there is a way to prevent this, I see no problem with it.

As for bigamy/polygamy, the only problems I see are the idea of not being honest about the situation and any form of sexism.

Let me explain. If you are going to practice polygamy, I feel it is necessary that all people involved are of conscenting age, and do, in fact, concent to the situation. It should remain illegal to marry more than one person without all parties having knowledge and concent.

The other problem, the sexism, refers to what is mostly seen in certain religious factions, where it is acceptable for a man to have more than one wife, but not the other way around. If one is to be accepted, then so must the other.

However, the issues of incest and polygamy are totally unrelated to the issue of gay marriage.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Maybe I'm letting my liberal freak-flag fly a little too high on this, but...

The only things I see against blood relative marriage is the potential for birth defects in the children. If there is a way to prevent this, I see no problem with it.

As I said in my post the we are assuming sterile adults.

As for bigamy/polygamy, the only problems I see are the idea of not being honest about the situation and any form of sexism.

Let me explain. If you are going to practice polygamy, I feel it is necessary that all people involved are of conscenting age, and do, in fact, concent to the situation. It should remain illegal to marry more than one person without all parties having knowledge and concent.

If an individual understands that his or her future spouce would contributre "X" amount of money and be available for "X" amount of time then I don't see an issue. Couples lie all of the time about many things. How does this obviate bigamy.

The other problem, the sexism, refers to what is mostly seen in certain religious factions, where it is acceptable for a man to have more than one wife, but not the other way around. If one is to be accepted, then so must the other.

Let me applaud you for being (mostly) logically consistent.

However, the issues of incest and polygamy are totally unrelated to the issue of gay marriage.

?????

Why? It goes right to the heart of what is and isn't marriage?

What is it about "gay marriage" that makes it uniquely different from polygamy?

It's your thread. If you want me to bow out I will. I couldn't disagree with you more but I will respect your opinion. Just let me know?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

By all means, Jr. Please continue to contribute.

As for why I say that polygamy and incest are totally unrelated to the issue of gay marriage, you have to understand the idea of the victims in any given situation.

In an incestuous marriage, there is a possibility of a victim, should the couple give birth to a defected child. (speaking in terms of reality, rather than hypothetically).

In a polygamous relationship, there is the possibility of deceit and fraud if any person involved does not have full knowledge of the situation. (If all members involved are aware, then this is related to gay marriage to an extent.)

In a gay marriage, the only potential "victims" are people who don't agree with the idea of gay marriage. The only potential "harm" to them is the idea that they are living in a "new Soddom" and that is only a psycho-somatic trauma. The fact is, also, the victims in this case are only victims of their own attitudes, and not the actions of a gay couple.

Hence, gay marriage is truly a victimless scenario, where as there is a possibility of victims in the other two. (Okay, I admit, the polygamy issue is more related than the incest one.)

 

[Ipecac]

I don't base my opposition to homosexual marriage on lower lifespans. I brought that up only in the context of the statement that what two homosexuals do happens in a vacuum (I am paraphrasing).

Sure there would be effects of homosexuality. Here is a link:

http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp

Ummm, are the views expressed there antiquated as well?

-Elliot

I can't get the link to fully load. It looks like it's a study on homosexuality and child molestation. I can't say much without seeing it, but if the conclusion is that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, I doubt that old canard holds water. Even if true, how does this relate to gay marriage? The number of homosexuals will remain the same whether you allow marriage or not.

With regards to your first paragraph, do you have any evidence that homosexuality is responsible for lower lifespans? Even if it is, so what? Being a football fan doesn't happen in a vacuum either. Does that mean we are justified in discriminating against football fans?

None of the things you've raised are good arguments against allowing consenting adults to marry.

 

[RandFanJr.]

As for why I say that polygamy and incest are totally unrelated to the issue of gay marriage, you have to understand the idea of the victims in any given situation.

In an incestuous marriage, there is a possibility of a victim, should the couple give birth to a defected child. (speaking in terms of reality, rather than hypothetically).

So sisters, brothers, father and son or a mother and daughter should not be excluded, right?

Will you for the sake of argument accept that sterile adults regardless of blood relations have as much right to marry as anyone?

Guy, one cannot simply dismiss a hypothetical by dismissing the premise. The purpose of this hypothetical is to find your true objection to incestuous marriage. If your only true objection is the potential for harm to offspring then logically you must accept that if we can remove that objection then you would not have a problem with it, right?

I accept that as a practical reality incestuous relationships have a potential for harm. But then there are other factors that have a potential for harm. If a man and woman who are not of blood relationship, who are tested and are found to have the same statistical chance of producing a defected child, should they be prohibited by law from marrying?

In a polygamous relationship, there is the possibility of deceit and fraud if any person involved does not have full knowledge of the situation. (If all members involved are aware, then this is related to gay marriage to an extent.)

Ok, remove bigamy but I am not convinced that your objections are significantly greater than the objections given against gay marriage. However, bigamy by definition involves deceit to some extent and gay marriage does not. I will accept for argument sake that bigamy is not related.

In a gay marriage, the only potential "victims" are people who don't agree with the idea of gay marriage. The only potential "harm" to them is the idea that they are living in a "new Soddom" and that is only a psycho-somatic trauma. The fact is, also, the victims in this case are only victims of their own attitudes, and not the actions of a gay couple.

I hate to characterize it as "victimless" since it suggests negative connotations like "victimless crime" however, I agree that it is victimless. Furthermore, and though I don't have the data I have read on a number of occasions that homosexuals are more likely to be educated, good citizens and less likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Ipecac is right, marriage would have no real impact if this were not the case since it would not reduce the number of homosexuals.

(Okay, I admit, the polygamy issue is more related than the incest one.)

Thanks for your tone and willingness to explore the issue. The last time I tried to broach the subject it got lost in accusations of bigotry, etc.

I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to be able to give objective reasons why gays and lesbians can't marry. I can't. I would prefer that they be called civil unions but I am willing to admit that my preference is not based on any objective reasons. I sincerely have no reservations about homosexuals receiving any and all other rights of heterosexuals.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

So sisters, brothers, father and son or a mother and daughter should not be excluded, right?

Will you for the sake of argument accept that sterile adults regardless of blood relations have as much right to marry as anyone?

You are correct when you say that for a hypothetical I cannot dismiss the premise. Therefore, I will state that if we assume some form of sterilization for one or both parties involved (and assuming the sterilization is voluntary. Forced sterilization brings a new level to the debate that I don't think is necessary here.), then yes, I do believe that there should be no exclusion for an incestuous marriage between two consenting adults. Remember, however, the important part of this is the fact that is would be between 2 consenting adults. I don't believe you would take the issue to allowing it with underage children, however, some might.

I accept that as a practical reality incestuous relationships have a potential for harm. But then there are other factors that have a potential for harm. If a man and woman who are not of blood relationship, who are tested and are found to have the same statistical chance of producing a defected child, should they be prohibited by law from marrying?

No, I do think, since they have knowledge of the potrential of created a defected child, they should be given the same choice I would give the incestuous couple, that is voluntary sterilization.

There are those who may think what I am saying here is cruel or contrary to the positions I state about my liberalism, but I am viewing it as a way to insure the rights of people that do not cause harm to others.

Ok, remove bigamy but I am not convinced that your objections are significantly greater than the objections given against gay marriage. However, bigamy by definition involves deceit to some extent and gay marriage does not. I will accept for argument sake that bigamy is not related.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I wasn't sure I was making my position clear and wasn't sure how to reword it if necessary.

I hate to characterize it as "victimless" since it suggests negative connotations like "victimless crime" however, I agree that it is victimless. Furthermore, and though I don't have the data I have read on a number of occasions that homosexuals are more likely to be educated, good citizens and less likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Ipecac is right, marriage would have no real impact if this were not the case since it would not reduce the number of homosexuals.

Actually, I don't like to define it as "victimless" either, however, living amoung the heavily christian, as I do, I find that they balk at my preference of the word "harmless".

Thanks for your tone and willingness to explore the issue. The last time I tried to broach the subject it got lost in accusations of bigotry, etc.

Yourself, as well, Jr. I have found that many people deal with certain issues on a purely emotional level, regardless of which side they fall on. This is one of those issues. The questions you've asked are valid, regardless of what anyone might tell you, and you were polite to me in asking them, so I certainly have no problem there.

To be perfectly honest, I thin the best way of dealing with this issue is not to redefine marriage legally, but to eliminate it as a legal institution. I don't see that happening, however, so I prefer the law to be even handed.

 

[elliotfc]

We do have a seperation of church and state in this country, which means that legislation cannot and should not involve the existence of a god.

But the opposition to gay marriage that I lay out never mentioned the existence of God, but merely the existence of a universal ban/taboo against same-sex marriage.

I don't think the idea that marraige should be between a man and a woman necessarily has to include a theistic defense, although of course it often does. Can an atheist believe that marraige should be limited to man-woman? Why not?

And for the record, are you aware that certain religious groups in ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt, as well as early Christian Churches allowed gay marriage? In the Christian example, straight weddings, usually about property, were held outside the church, whereas gay weddings, more often about love, were held inside. (I have a book somewhere at home with this info in it, I will put up the info for verification as soon as I can look it up.)

Please do.

I am not aware of any governments that have allowed gay marriages. There have been, however, governmental regulations regarding homosexual relations/connections, most famously in Greece.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

So, you believe tradition justifies using government to deny a segment of the population benefits and rights it supplies other segements?

In this case the institution of marriage transcends government. In my opinion a government should not overturn a universal definition of marriage.

I'm sure people (millions of them as well) thought segregation of the races was a "universal tradition," would that have justified it's continuance?

No, because they would have been wrong. They could have the opinion but it would have been wrong. The segregated races would have, contemporarily, full rights in another part of the world. In other words, the definitions upholding segregation would be particular to a certain nation and not universal.

Unless there is a good reason, government has no right to discriminate. The religious beliefs or general cultural traditions of the majority are hardly sufficient grounds upon which to justify governmental discrimination.

In principal you are correct. The opposition, in this case, has to rest on the belief that the marriage tradition is beyond governmental intrusion.

In fact the grounds are quite sufficient. Government discriminates often, from how they handle criminals to children to naturalized citizens. Those are particulars of course, not related to the marriage thing. But the grounds have been sufficient for a couple hundred years, and just because you say they aren't sufficient doesn't change that, nor does it change general public sentiment. The majority wants the elected government to respect the marriage tradition and not re-define it. I call that sufficient grounds, yet I respect and admire ideological opposition to it. In other words I don't think your position is illogical or untenable.

This isn't about giving gays something special, its about not continuing denying them the rights the government gives others. The government has every right and ability to get out of the marriage issue altogether. What it shouldn't do is discriminate based simply on religious or traditional biases.

But you're missing the point! Marriage is special, that's the crux of the matter for the traditionalists.

Perhaps marriage is bigger than government, the remedy for that is either remove the religious/cultural biases or even better, get out of the business altogether.

Not if you think that government must respect the idea of marriage as essential to civilization and deserving of respect, even assistance and promotion. Admittedly this is murky, and most of us just use our common sense here (common sense meaning the traditional viewpoint).

-Elliot

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliot said:
I don't think the idea that marraige should be between a man and a woman necessarily has to include a theistic defense, although of course it often does. Can an atheist believe that marraige should be limited to man-woman? Why not?

There is no reason why not, but then again, why? What purpose does the limitation serve, if not a religious one?

It seems to me that if we are going to object to marriage other than between a man and a woman, we must object to everything that accompanies marriage: love, cohabitation, sex, child raising, and so forth. Otherwise we are doing nothing other than objecting to a particular label being attached to two people.

~~ Paul

 

[elliotfc]

Great. So, am I to understand that your position is that it's okay to be homosexual so long as one doesn't act on it?

See, I really do hate focusing on *one* sinful proclivity. I am no better than a homosexual; my nature is no more superior or inferior. We all have sinful natures. I have acted on my sexual nature in the past (I am unmarried) and I don't think I should be imprisoned for that or that I will burn in hell for that.

We are who we are, and we are in control of what we do, and should be held accountable (God) for what we do. I am no different from a homosexual when it comes to this.

We have two different worldviews when it comes to this issue. I am assuming your view here is that sexual desire is not unhealthy and there should be no reason to place a taboo on a certain sexual desire, particularly (or because) a peson can not help what sexual desires they have. Add to this the thing about not hurting other people. My view is that sexual desire is not inherently evil but is still out-of-order. Like any kind of desire, sexual desire is not outside the rules of morality. Our moralities, of course, differ in certain particulars.

And I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't do what they want! The debate is whether governments should grant them marriage licenses. Homosexuals can do what ever they want.

....except, get married legally, right?

Well sheesh, I don't have the right to play second base for the Red Sox.

Homosexuals can do what they want, but like anything, they can't force others to change their standards to fit their desire.

Homosexuals are getting married in San Francisco as we speak. They are sham marriages, and they are against the law, but they won't be imprisoned and they can tell anyone and everyone that they are now married. That doesn't mean the state has to recognize what they have done.

Again, all societies, universally, have rejected same-sex marriage. It is a 30-year period of time where this universal ban has been called into question. No value judgment can inherently be placed on that, but I sure as heck won't admit that the universal history of human legislative practice on this matter is out of order. An ideal has been defended by law. A definition is in place. This ideal and definition has proven to be stabilizing and worthy and successful.

You have some proof of this 'success', I presume? Last I heard, divorces are in the 50% range among heterosexuals...

And people who get divorced remarry. If you think about it, there is no reason why society has to incorporate the concept of marriage, the concepts of mother/father husband/wife. Yet every society does. Every society always has, and always will. When divorce occurs, you'll hear the majority of divorcees say that they still respect the insitution of marriage and regret that the marriage didn't work out. They don't blame the institution but themselves. Of course there are exceptions.

Perhaps we allow too much in some areas, but personal freedom of choice seems to be under attack constantly. Not gonna de-rail on the abortion issue, but I don't think gay people consider gay marriage to be a minor issue. No one seems to be able to answer the question: How does gay marriage threaten society or its values?

Whenever you say that a universal value is meaningless, how can you not affect societal values?

You declare that a universal is wrong, and you inherently threated the values of society.

I find it more academically interesting that it's taken over 200 years for this country to get it's head on straight when it comes to respecting personal decisions and relationships. And yet, we still keep our heads in the sand.

But it's not just us! It's everybody! I'm academically interested whenever academics scratch their heads over universal common sense. How about every other country on the planet? What's with the unilateralism? Just kidding.

-Elliot

 

[Interesting Ian]

I really thought about adding a smiley to my post but then I thought "why should I? No one could possibly take that seriously; it's so obviously a joke from beginning to end." Oh well, my mistake I guess.

Nah, it makes posts more amusing when you take the piss but don't bother to add a smiley. The fact that SFG fell for it makes it all the better!

 

[elliotfc]

There is no reason why not, but then again, why? What purpose does the limitation serve, if not a religious one?

Again, stability. Every society that has ever existed has had words for the following: marriage, husband, wife, mother, father. These roles are universal. Look at it scientifically. If something is invariably observed, should you not draw a conclusion from that? Try to find the exception and you see that it does not exist.

This is why I say it has nothing to do with religion.

The limitation is obviously natural to human organization and custom.

It seems to me that if we are going to object to marriage other than between a man and a woman, we must object to everything that accompanies marriage: love, cohabitation, sex, child raising, and so forth. Otherwise we are doing nothing other than objecting to a particular label being attached to two people.

But that never occurred to people thousands of years ago, or fifty years ago.

Human beings must have relations with each other, how can they not? The marriage definition is particular and defined, but even a married couple must have relations with other humans, they are not limited to each other.

This is a case where words (actually the concepts behind the words, since the words are universal) are very important and not mere labels. We wouldn't call defining some numbers as integers and others as fractions mere labelling.

Or maybe some people would. What can you do.

-Elliot

 

[Ipecac]

We all have sinful natures.

. . .

My view is that sexual desire is not inherently evil but is still out-of-order.

-Elliot

I am so glad I dumped these out-of-date, absurd notions. The self-loathing and guilt that these concepts encourage among so many people is one of the chief evils of religion.

 

[Ipecac]

Again, stability. Every society that has ever existed has had words for the following: marriage, husband, wife, mother, father. These roles are universal. Look at it scientifically. If something is invariably observed, should you not draw a conclusion from that? Try to find the exception and you see that it does not exist.

-Elliot

The concept of divorce goes completely against the stability argument. So does the existence of couples who don't have children.

It doesn't matter what society has traditionally allowed. As progressive human beings, we're allowed to change things. Slavery was a human tradition. We outlawed it.

Your arguments just don't stand scrutiny.

 

[Suddenly]

In this case the institution of marriage transcends government. In my opinion a government should not overturn a universal definition of marriage.

1) There is no overturning. The government would simply stop enforcing religious/tradtion based discrimination. Churches can refuse to marry whoever they want. People now married would still be married.

2) You have a funny definition of universal. Any basis for that? I can refute it simply by stating that I do not adhere to your "universal" definition. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I am not alone.

Regardless, you are bootstrapping "majority" into "universal" without supporting such a leap.

No, because they would have been wrong. They could have the opinion but it would have been wrong. The segregated races would have, contemporarily, full rights in another part of the world. In other words, the definitions upholding segregation would be particular to a certain nation and not universal.

I think you missed the point. How does a "universal" tradition (assumung one exists) as opposed to just a tradition justify discrimination? If every society from the begining of time practiced racial segregation, is that segregation then O.K.? Isn't this just an appeal to the majority on steroids?

In principal you are correct. The opposition, in this case, has to rest on the belief that the marriage tradition is beyond governmental intrusion.

In fact the grounds are quite sufficient. Government discriminates often, from how they handle criminals to children to naturalized citizens. Those are particulars of course, not related to the marriage thing. But the grounds have been sufficient for a couple hundred years, and just because you say they aren't sufficient doesn't change that, nor does it change general public sentiment. The majority wants the elected government to respect the marriage tradition and not re-define it. I call that sufficient grounds, yet I respect and admire ideological opposition to it. In other words I don't think your position is illogical or untenable.

I just want to know what the grounds are, besides religious tradition. That is it. Is there a reason beyond simple dislike? Dress it up as long held tradition or whatever, it still boils down to at best "just because" and at worst "because we don't care for their kind."

Government is somehow expected to use the force of law to enforce a particular religious/cultural definition of marriage on the general public. How in the heck is this acceptable? Just because we allow this sort of thing for hundred of years does not make it right. Just because a majority may favor it doesn't make it right. A solid reason why keeping gays from marrying would at least be a start in making it legitimate.

But you're missing the point! Marriage is special, that's the crux of the matter for the traditionalists.

To them, maybe, but government is not supposed to take its cues from religious based tradition. Giving the same right to gays that is already given to hetrosexuals is not giving gays more than is given hetros. Saying discrimination is OK simply because the right is "special" really is just the same "just because" religious tradition argument.

Not if you think that government must respect the idea of marriage as essential to civilization and deserving of respect, even assistance and promotion. Admittedly this is murky, and most of us just use our common sense here (common sense meaning the traditional viewpoint).

-Elliot

Murky? How about it being a completely unsupported assumption? If there were a solid reason for why our civilization is harmed by gays being married, then we have a different story. However, all that is offered at this point is "it is tradition," it is obvious," "it means we have to let people marry their car" and other fuzzy and/or fallacious declarations.

Traditionalists want it both ways. They want government to recognize their tradition by giving certain special rights to those that take part. However, they want government to discriminate just as they would as to who is eligible for those benefits. Government should not be in that business.

Government is not a tool for the advancement of one viewpoint. People are welcome to their religious and cultural beliefs and traditions. What they are not welcome to is the use of government to distribute rights and benefits only to people that their traditions deem worthy of respect.

Marriage can exist just fine without government. If we are going to bring government in to this mess, then benefits should be available to all, and not restricted based on a certain groups religious tradition, majority tradition or not.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

A quick metacrawler search produces the following:

In Christianity

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

Ancient Greece

630 BC: Greece: The poet Alcman writes a hymn for a chorus of virgins in celebration of the marriage of two young women, Agido and Hagesichora. United in love, the couple become part of a community of young women called a thiasos and vow to remain impervious to the charms of the other desirable young women who surround them.

And I will keep looking for more.

 

[elliotfc]

I am so glad I dumped these out-of-date, absurd notions. The self-loathing and guilt that these concepts encourage among so many people is one of the chief evils of religion.

Understanding one's desires and keeping them in check does not mean you loathe yourself.

If the opinion that adultery is wrong is an out-of-date and absurd notion then whatever. I'll stick with it regardless of the label applied.

Without guilt we'd have a sociopathic society. The greatest monsters do not experience guilt.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The concept of divorce goes completely against the stability argument. So does the existence of couples who don't have children.

It doesn't matter what society has traditionally allowed. As progressive human beings, we're allowed to change things. Slavery was a human tradition. We outlawed it.

Your arguments just don't stand scrutiny.

The concept of divorce is necessary for, in my opinion, extreme circumstances (husband beating wife etc.). Marriage needs to be protected from abusive and despicable behavior (more specificall the abused party, but the institution as well). Even religions have the possiblity of annulled marriages.

Couples (man-wife) who don't have children are a case of accidental or intentional or sterility, as opposed to essential sterility.

We are allowed to change anything of course, I don't disagree.

Slavery was a tradition that varied from region to region concurrently. My point about same-sex marriage was that it has never varied from region to region.

My arguments are that marriage is a special case, and I can understand that you would disagree.

-Elliot