Night Strike wrote:Player, you force your definitions of morals on everybody every single day through your beliefs in redistributive government control, so there's no reason to even start down that path.
LOL... if I want something I am "imposing my will".. but when you want it somehow its not??? Even if what you wish has actually nothing to do with you at all (or are you saying you are homosexual now???)
Night Strike wrote:And I never said that homosexual relations should be outlawed.
and I never said you did say that, so why bother bringing up the irrelevant point (a strawman, maybe?).
Night Strike wrote: I simply said that we as a society should not be forced to include those relations in the definition of marriage.
No, actually you are saying that the
government cannot recognize these marriages or offer them the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy without special proclomations or laws that deal only with homosexuals.
NO ONE is saying you, as individual have to like or agree with homosexual marriage.. any more than anyone will force you to like a marriage between a satanist and a Christian or any other people who wish to marry. This is about
government acknowledgements.
Night Strike wrote:The definition of marriage has to be changed for over 95% of the population in order to accommodate the 1-2% of homosexuals?
Well it already was changed to mean just mean and women in this country for years. (see, contrary to what you wish to assert, other forms of marriage do predate the current model you tout and I live).
Later was changed to add in mixed race as allowed, even though there are still only a handful of people who marry those of other acknowledged races today. Those changes came about because those people felt it was oppressive to deny them the recognition. Homosexual couples feel they are being denied things heterosexuals enjoy without effort.. and they are correct, so why not add them?
Night Strike wrote: Why don't we also change it to allow for polygamy?
Well, #1 what does that have to do with homosexuals.
However, I will answer:
Because polygamists produce far more children than they can honestly take care of. Because in order to feed the polygamist lifestyle, young men have to be booted out and younger women recruited..often down to quite young women, those we consider below the age of consent. Unlike the claims you make about homosexuality, those things are born out by history repeatedly.
However, that said, if those problems are dealt with in some sane way, then maybe we should consider legalizing it. It is not, however, the current debate.
Night Strike wrote:The most stable relationship for the continuation of every society throughout history is one of one man with one woman for life.
That is not true. Marriage can involve many kinds of relationships and associations. The space here is too limited to get into all of that, but the biggest thing promoting stability is that those in the relationship are happy therein.
That brings us back to the biggest problem with your assertion. Its not really true. Sure, divorces were infrequent in the past, but that tends to happen when the only real "options" women face are to be a prostitute, pretend to be a boy, hope to be taken in by a relative (often not really an option due to the disgrace issue) or starve. The exceptions were extremely few. That kind of "stability" was not, in fact, healthy for any. The cycle of abuse was often perpetuated, is still often perpetuated... and with implications you won't even bother to consider like a high proportion of women on welfare, etc. (also because welfare is geared towards women and children --but the above is part of why. Welfare was passed without any real debate at the time because people took it for granted that a widow had either to remarry, be a prostitute/work in some "uhealthy" occupation or be dependent). (waitresses, and such were not truly "respectable" for women back then.. tolerated when the woman had a child to support, etc... and in truth, women who waited often had to deal with a good deal of abuse as "part of their job").
Night Strike wrote:We've already done irreparable harm to that through no-fault divorces, so let's not make it worse through changing definitions to allow any life choice that anybody could come up with.
LOL
But, if the major harm is divorce, then why not allow homosexuals to marry and show the solidity of their unions?
And, AGAIN... no mention of real and true harm.
Just "it changes the definition"
(and that is actually false if you look at the world, not just US/western european tradition)
Maybe it is time to get back to that "stability"... 
