Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo
I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.
And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?
|
Uh to continue with this train of terrible logic your point is still moot. Some people are allowed same-sex marriage under the law (see a few states, Canada, and so on.) No one in the United States is allowed to married to multiple partners at once but you can go to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and Iowa if you want same-sex marriage. So no you aren't all equal as United States citizens right now.
I don't really see what's wrong with me referring to homosexuality as a biological condition. I've never met a homosexuality who said they were born straight and decided to switch later, so I would consider it something you're born with (which is the basic definition for biological condition. I know sexuality has more to do with psychology than genetics but I don't really care unless you want to argue semantics.) I don't consider polygamy/monogamy to be as innate as that. They're more something of social construct and societal expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJamJah
I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. It should be up to the church or individuals who gets married to who.
Why do I care if someone Marry's a man, woman, 10 men and 12 woman or a herd of cattle. There is no law that says I can't call them a crazy fucking asshole.
|
Zoophilia should remain illegal in all circumstances. Animals can't give consent.