> Einstein wrote:

> Btw most Americans, especially blacks and latins support my view, the vast majority of States have outlawed it.<<

Back when they were protesting Prop 8 outside Mormon temples reporters asked them if they were going to protest outside the African MethodistEpiscopalian church next

"Um we don't want to get into where we will or won't protest"

hahhaha yeah

"You're BIGOTS! You're full of HATE! You don't speak for GOD!  BIGOTS!...uh wait I don't want to go in there, hey leggome OAAAAAAAAHGHH"

This is quite rapidly turning into a religious discussion pitting Christianity vs. the rest.
In that sense it makes no sense to even reply to those making the pro-Christian statements such as "we trademarked marriage" and words of Adam & Eve or other such fairytails from the book of Genesis, and claiming that the Christian god be the only one. Tunnelvision and fallacies.

"As for the claim of Gayness of Christ, Fly OFF you lying Btard. I mean that sincerely. You revisionists try to paint him as anything but what he was. Go away."
I was not claiming that Christ committed gay deeds. I was implying that there was a large chance that he had, as in that time they were deemed as normal.

"By who?"
The Romans, the dominant civilisation at that time (and the Greeks alike).

We're not dolphins or monkeys, Paininside.

Raising our children collectively would be an assault on natural selection and the evolution of our species.

I just don't care about your kids as much as I do mine. Most people don't.

Plato was a member of the aristocracy, [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie. He did not speak of or for the average person of his region, let alone age.

Roman views on homosexuality were more nuanced than "it was normal," RisingDown. Free males would lose status if they engaged in homosexual acts not in the dominant/penetrative role. This highlights the fact that it wasn't simply accepted as normal for guys to do out of anything conntected to  love (equals didn't do it together, they did it to prostitutes/slaves), but an act of dominance and perverted satiation.

"Numerous examples of same sex unions among peers, not age-structured, are found in Ancient Greek writings. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side.[18] Lucian describes a debate in which a proponent of same-sex relationships describes them as being more stable than heterosexual relationships and goes on to express the hope that he will be buried with his lover after they have passed their lives together.[19] Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned. The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And when did any Westerner begin describing these "partnerships" as anything but platonic?  Oh right, last 50 years.

Only because the Christian church has blocked any such developments since it became the dominant religion in the (Eastern) Roman Empire and caused the outlawing of same-sex marriage, Chris.

The fact that us Westerner's have for a long time ignored these facts, or that people who did illuminate upon them were muffled and silenced, does not mean that they were in fact present.

Ok, I read into it a bit more deeply and have found that your following notion, Chris, that was shared by Kemp, is correct in regards to the point of view of Romans to homosexual marriage and sex in regards to status

"Actually what a few celebrated was more like what we call, "child molestation".  And even those were regarded as inferiors who had wasted themselves.   Note well: they were not sinners in need of redemption, but rather, inferior specimens who had identified their true level and would be restricted from overreaching themselves."

Probably best summarised in the following line by Seneca the Elder:
"impudicita is a crime for the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman"

It still holds however that homosexual marriage was accepted in Rome, as long as the bitch in the relationship did not hold any status as otherwise he was committing impudicita ( the negation of pudicitia, "sexual morality, chastity.") (and I do not solely mean the pueri, aka the "child molestation" that you refer to, Chris)

Oh and I found out that the emperor Elagabalus was completely disrespected by the Romans and murdered at age 18. Perhaps not the best example either of homosexual marriages being accepted

"It is however not necessary for the man and woman to be connected to each other with vows exchanged in marriage for them to remain together, nor does marriage ensure that they will remain together forever."

It's still connected. It's still related.

"Then again some people marry because they feel the need to do so, simply because they love each other. Love holds priority, children and reproduction being the result of their relationship rather than their marriage."

Love's the reason they have kids too. It's still connected. It's still related.

The love that holds priority is a certain type of love with a certain type of end. Homosexuals are biologically incapable of achieving this end.

The only way heterosexual sexual love (the kind of love which leads to marriage) DOESN'T result in children is if significant measures are taken to prevent it or medical inability prohibits it. This type of love naturally leads to children.

This is intrinsically tied in to the perpetuation of our species. This makes it a pretty big deal. It's not a minor detail. It's a huge difference between heterosexual marriage and the function is performs in society and homosexual relationships.

The claim that marriage is not in any way related to sexual relations is just bizarre and nonsensical. Subsequently, the claim that marriage is not in any way related to procreation is just bizarre and nonsensical.

There's a lot more context to marriage than the overly-simplistic understand of "love." "Marriage" has never been used to describe all types of love with all types of purposes. Okay, by a few individuals. But not by the other tens of billions.

I hate arguments that words need to be redefined so somebody can feel the way they want. People need to learn to accept the world the way it is. No, two men can't create a baby. No, two women can't create a baby. It doesn't mean anyone has to hate themself, kill themself, or not do what makes them happy. Demanding a term that describes the sort of relationship which creates children be applied to relationships which cannot create children is just a bizarre protest again nature.

"Here I find that you make a rather strange conclusion. If marriage is intrinsically just simply the union of man and woman, why does the ability to reproduce (by form, as you stress out) have to be a logical consequence of this union? Using the wording "it just so happens" implies that the possibilty to reproduce is just a nifty by product to a union between a man and a woman, and not necessarily to marriage."

I'm not sure if I am permitted by the forum rules to inform you where babies come from.

I find claims of no knowledge of the connection between sex and procreation quite shocking and ignorant. It sounds like people are following some bizarre ideology leading them to believe there's nothing unique about the love between a man and a woman which can create a child, or that children are best raised by both.

That's your opinion.

If you want to change the definition of marriage, are you proposing a substitute for what marriage has traditionally meant for thousands of years? Is concise language undesirable? Is having a unique word for this unique type of relationship somehow undesirable? We only have one word for it now, but you're seeking to make it vague, leaving no specific term for this unique relationship. That's just sloppy language.

I'd like to be a billionaire genius too, but redefining these words so they apply to me wouldn't make my life any better and would be awful for our language, billionaires, and geniuses.

its not an opinion, its a fact, plenty people nowdays who decide not to have children while getting maried. times change, meaning of words change, beleifs change, values change, but mariage stays the same? makes sence!
your the one forcing us your opinion of a defenition of mariage. but in the end majority decides. when that majority is in favor of gay mariage, what wil happen to your arguments then? wil it become a opinion, or remain fact?

RisingDown,

"What I mean, V. Kemp, in regards to marriage not intrinsically being connected to reproduction is that, although statistically the two hold corrolation to one another, logically this does not always have to be correct."

Their connection is inherent, not just statistical.

"Therefore one cannot equate marriage to reproduction (as this would imply that they logically are direct consequences of one another)."

That one does not absolutely/necessarily lead to the other does not negate the direct and inherent connection between the two.

"Marriage is not a primary variable on which reproduction depends, nor is the opposite true. The notion that marriage and reproduction are directly linked and therefore that marriage is solely to reproduce is a false one."

That marriage is not necessary for reproduction does not equate with a diminished role of reproduction inherent in marriage. Reproduction and marriage are inherently linked. Platonic relationships of the good don't result in children. The sexual relationships of homosexuals do not result in children. The sexual relationships of heterosexuals (who can choose to get married) do. Oh look, that's the one which can be marriage: A commitment to become family, coincidentally (hint: irony) also the sole type of relationship which can create family. It's got a unique title and it's got a unique function.

Paininside,

It's a fact that the word should be redefined? Okay then. Strong argument.

That things change is no argument for changing any particular thing. That medicine has changed from a thousand years ago doesn't mean we should change healthy diets rich in fruits and vegetables.

"your the one forcing us your opinion of a defenition of mariage."

I'm simply using it to mean what it's always meant: A term for the committed relationships of men and women who become family for all intents and purposes. Relationships which, by form, cannot create families like this are fundamentally different relationships.

There's no reason to call fundamentally different relationships by the same term which is specific to another type of relationship.

"when that majority is in favor of gay mariage, what wil happen to your arguments then? "

They will remain unchanged. Words have meaning. This word currently means something. It's a unique word for a unique relationship. Broadening its meaning, rather than institutionalizing a new word or phrase as desired, is damaging to our language and insulting to our intelligence. We're not too stupid to use specific words for specific relationships. There's nothing wrong with describing different things with different words. It's only logical.

I have little religious to say about "gay rights" (lulz it sounds silly. cause the rights are gay. teehee) so I will bow out now. Gay people are human beings. They should have all the rights of other human beings. This is my religious belief on the topic, in keeping with the ideal of justice and equality before god and law on earth. If gay people want to marry people of the opposite sex in the intimate/romantic/family (not incest!)/family-creating sort of relationship which is marriage, they should have that right.