Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):Not really, other than one has always been generally accepted and embraced by social norms while the other has not.
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):Not what I mean. Take the marriage out of it for now. Is there a significant difference between a loving, healthy heterosexual relationship and a loving, healthy homosexual relationship? Aside from the fact that one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual?
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):OK. I assume you are talking about a legally formalized and recognized relationship. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Can't believe I'm posting in here again.
Directed towards tec. Aside from the obvious, do you see a significant difference between a loving relationship between 2 people of the opposite sex and 2 people of the same sex?
The only difference I see is that one (opposite sex) would be a traditional marriage, and the other (same sex) would be a civil union. Similar things, different connotations.
OK, so let's say there isn't one.
Why do people get married? They want to make a commitment to each other, that they'll spend the rest of their lives together. That they'll always love them and be there for them, etc, etc, etc.
Unless we're missing something - There isn't a difference in how homosexual relationships work. So the SOLE reason to prevent SSM is because they are members of the same-sex. And I suppose that myself and BL and others don't really see that as a good enough reason. They're people. Two people of the same sex who are in love with each other want to make a commitment to each other through marriage that they'll always be there for each other, and will commit to each other to be the best possible couple they can be. I don't see how it's significantly different than 2 people of the opposite sex.
You do. Changing the definition to include same-sex couples is a major step that changes what marriage is for you. I do understand that it's a change to the classic definition, but I don't see that in itself as a legitimate reason. I'd like to think I get both sides of any argument. I'm still trying to understand yours. Values and tradition...ok. But I think we like to celebrate marriage as people showing their commitment to each other for the rest of their lives, and that's the important part of marriage. The man-woman thing seems less important.
I guess I'm asking you to enlighten me a little bit more. I went back about 8 pages to see if I missed anything new in your argument and didn't see anything. I'm missing something here. What it is about marriage that makes the man-woman part of it so important?