Are there any secular arguments against gay marriage? - General

[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46140478] My idea was that if I could fail to explain why human homosexuals exist in regards to evolution[/QUOTE] Why is an abstract concept of ours, it doesn't apply to evolution or anything else. Evolution isn't a means to an end, it doesn't travel in a straight line so to speak, it's an aimless repetition of growth and mutation through countless generations - it appears to occur in a deliberate way only because the mutations that [b]survive[/b] are more specifically suited in their physicality to their environment. It's not a sentient process, how could it be? Maybe a species of bird produces 20,000 offspring one year, with hundreds of very slight variations across that sample - the ones with the longest beaks fare the best by happenstance, because they can get into more flowers or what have you. Not by design, luck of the draw. More of the long beaks survive, they copulate more times, and perhaps in five years the species is 1% more long-beaked overall. Repeat the process over hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years and eventually you'll have a bird with an enormously long beak in exactly the ideal shape, as though it's been tailor-made to live as it does. My point is that you can't say that homosexuality is a defect in a process, because the process is based upon factory seconds you could say. It's ALL various defects, mutations. If it were "natural" to produce a pure strain, completely self-similar offspring each generation, no species would move past primordial soup tier, as there would be no progress. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.

[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46145653]Why is an abstract concept of ours, it doesn't apply to evolution or anything else. Evolution isn't a means to an end, it doesn't travel in a straight line so to speak, it's an aimless repetition of growth and mutation through countless generations - it appears to occur in a deliberate way only because the mutations that [b]survive[/b] are more specifically suited in their physicality to their environment. It's not a sentient process, how could it be? Maybe a species of bird produces 20,000 offspring one year, with hundreds of very slight variations across that sample - the ones with the longest beaks fare the best by happenstance, because they can get into more flowers or what have you. Not by design, luck of the draw. More of the long beaks survive, they copulate more times, and perhaps in five years the species is 1% more long-beaked overall. Repeat the process over hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years and eventually you'll have a bird with an enormously long beak in exactly the ideal shape, as though it's been tailor-made to live as it does. My point is that you can't say that homosexuality is a defect in a process, because the process is based upon factory seconds you could say. It's ALL various defects, mutations. If it were "natural" to produce a pure strain, completely self-similar offspring each generation, no species would move past primordial soup tier, as there would be no progress. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.[/QUOTE] But I... I posted above how homosexuality is beneficial and can be explained by Darwinist evolution (specifically for humans and not other species)... It increases fecundity in maternal female relatives, I even found a very informative scientific study just for you! (Wait, are you reading all the content in my posts or just the parts you disagree with?)

I just wanted to point out that to think of it in terms of some sort of predetermined function is a mistake. Trying "to explain why" whether or not you think you can is a silly idea in the first place.

Most of HIV is transmitted in the gay community where condoms are seldom used. It's to a point where gay men are banned from donating blood and organs.

[QUOTE=01271;46146540]Most of HIV is transmitted in the gay community where condoms are seldom used. It's to a point where gay men are banned from donating blood and organs.[/QUOTE] Taking two gay men and joining them in a monogamous relationship should keep them from contracting HIV, then, if they were careful about staying HIV-negative prior to marriage. I don't see the argument. And if the argument is that people with HIV shouldn't be able to get married, that opens up a whole can of worms and I don't think [I]anyone[/I] wants to submit to an STD screening to get a marriage license.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46131245]Ok so I'm reading it and in the first couple of pages, they've made an appeal to tradition (this goes against the view we've always had for marriage!!!!) which is fallacious, just because throughout history that's always been the view doesn't make it right[/QUOTE] The line you quoted isn't even an argument for any kind of marriage. It's a clarifying statement about what the goal is, namely, to change what marriage is, not add people to the already accepted idea of marriage. This, as they show, is a clear difference to the fight for interracial marriage. [QUOTE](additionally, same-sex unions have existed in formal ceremonies since ancient greek times, and it was then that Christianity stepped in and said no, so actually, before large scale organised religion we were ok with same-sex marriage, then Christianity said no).[/QUOTE] No Greek society had homosexual marriage. Sure, there were plenty of homosexual relationships, but those relationships were never thought of as equal to a marriage between husband and wife. [QUOTE]So despite the subtle suggestion that gay people should just not act on their sexual desires (that is bigotry) in bold, they're trying for the slippery slope fallacy.[/QUOTE] Again, that part of the paper isn't even part of their argument. It's a clarifying statement, not a persuasive statement. The statement you bolded is clearly saying that having a desire for something is not the same thing as having a right to it. We expect MANY types of people to not act on their desires. So to say that a gay person is born with a desire for people of the same sex is not the same thing as saying that they have a right to marry a person of the same sex. [QUOTE]They then go on to claim that marriage isn't just a legal contract because if it was then they can't get it wrong because it's a law... and so if something is just law, then it is right? I guess?[/QUOTE] If something is nothing more than a legal contract, then it would make no sense to say that it is wrong, like the proponents for homosexual marriage are claiming. Instead, they claim that the law is discriminatory. This assumes that a more correct version of the law SHOULD exist. This means that the law is a reflection of some moral truth and not simply a law. [QUOTE]Yeah! Because if it's only law, then there is no way to get it wrong! Slavery was just law, so it's not wrong! The point I'm making is laws can be wrong, injust, unconstitutional, as anti same-sex marriage laws often are.[/QUOTE] Their entire point is that when you claim a law to be wrong you are also implicitly claiming that some moral truth exists beyond that law. Their argument would equally apply to slavery. By saying that a law that condones slavery is wrong you are appealing to some moral truth beyond the law. This is the same thing that proponents of homosexual marriage do. [QUOTE]They then use that claim to state that since marriage extends beyond law as a set of moral obligations, the state can't confer marriage on things that aren't same sex marriage and so therefore don't actually help their point (a man and his two best friends, a woman and an inanimate object). They seem to be trying to say that the moral connections of a heterosexual marriage can't be had in a same sex one. They don't discuss this further but it seems they're saying that gays can't love each other romantically. Ok I read a bunch more and it just gets tedious the kinds of claims they're making. Each is almost as refutable as the next. For the most part they're using straw man arguments, the case for incest and polyamory etc are all just ways to deter from the main point. Meanwhile they continue to go down the biological route - it's about the children! If you accept their arguments, state sanctioned marriage should be disbanded and replaced with seperate contracts to recognise legal rights for marriage and everything else should be performed by a religious institution because it's all inherently spiritual. They also absolutely neglect the impact rejecting same sex marriage has on young, depressed and irrational teenagers who are growing up LGBTQI, those kids need every little bit of sunshine they can get. I needed to edit so things got a little stuffed.[/QUOTE] I'll just ignore this because you obviously didn't read the article very closely. You make statements directly against what they actually say. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] It seems you didn't really comprehend what they were saying at all because you constantly took incorrect conclusions from the text. You also confused the first part of the article that is only there to clarify terms and the concepts involved as arguments.

[QUOTE=01271;46146540]Most of HIV is transmitted in the gay community where condoms are seldom used. It's to a point where gay men are banned from donating blood and organs.[/QUOTE] This is not true and has not been true for a very long time. Watch the documentary HIV and Me if you want information on very specifically this point. It's an offensive thing to think these days frankly, as is assuming that all gay couples have anal sex, which is more prevalent a practice in heterosexual relationships.

Well I suppose one point is what kind of marriage it is. For example, if a religion says that it's not right for a gay couple to be married, then obviously it's not going to be acceptable for that couple to have a religious marriage under that particular faith. However, a civil marriage (civil union) shouldn't exclude gay couples, and so that gay couple could still marry, just that it shouldn't be carried out in a building associated with that aforementioned religion or presided over by a relevant religious leader. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] Eg if the bible says that it's not okay for gay couples to marry (I actually don't know what the bible says, but for the sake of argument), then obviously that couple shouldn't marry in a church, and should marry somewhere else instead.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46146569]Taking two gay men and joining them in a monogamous relationship should keep them from contracting HIV, then, if they were careful about staying HIV-negative prior to marriage. I don't see the argument. And if the argument is that people with HIV shouldn't be able to get married, that opens up a whole can of worms and I don't think [I]anyone[/I] wants to submit to an STD screening to get a marriage license.[/QUOTE] Great counter, I don't have anything to throw it back so consider it defeated. [QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;46147642]This is not true and has not been true for a very long time. Watch the documentary HIV and Me if you want information on very specifically this point. It's an offensive thing to think these days frankly, as is assuming that all gay couples have anal sex, which is more prevalent a practice in heterosexual relationships.[/QUOTE] However to this and at the risk of going off-topic I say that both the cdc and Canada's health research disagree with you. Based on research made in 2011 and 2012,the incidence of hiv cases among my own sexual orientation account for the majority of new hiv cases every year. :<

[QUOTE=sgman91;46147001]If something is nothing more than a legal contract, then it would make no sense to say that it is wrong, like the proponents for homosexual marriage are claiming. Instead, they claim that the law is discriminatory. This assumes that a more correct version of the law SHOULD exist. This means that the law is a reflection of some moral truth and not simply a law. Their entire point is that when you claim a law to be wrong you are also implicitly claiming that some moral truth exists beyond that law. Their argument would equally apply to slavery. By saying that a law that condones slavery is wrong you are appealing to some moral truth beyond the law. This is the same thing that proponents of homosexual marriage do. [/QUOTE] No. No. Not at all. People are capable of deciding subjective morals and applying those. One of those for instance could be "All people should be treated equally" in regards to the law is not one based on an objective moral truth but the subjective moral decision that all people are equal. Is there some rule that says someone can't hold a subjective moral code that they think is right? Your morals, as much as you like to believe and, well, impose on the rest of us that your morals are true, objective morals, are as subjective as anyone's ever could be or ever has been.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46150608]No. No. Not at all. People are capable of deciding subjective morals and applying those. One of those for instance could be "All people should be treated equally" in regards to the law is not one based on an objective moral truth but the subjective moral decision that all people are equal. Is there some rule that says someone can't hold a subjective moral code that they think is right? Your morals, as much as you like to believe and, well, impose on the rest of us that your morals are true, objective morals, are as subjective as anyone's ever could be or ever has been.[/QUOTE] When subjective morals are treated as if they were objective, then you might as well call them objective. The entire purpose of the gay marriage movement is to force their subjective morals on everybody and they refer to those who disagree as bigots and morally inferior to themselves. You may think that they have subjective morals, but they act as if they were objective. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] With that said, whether the people's morals in question are objective or not is irrelevant to the point. They are still appealing to some moral truth beyond the law. By doing so they are implicitly claiming that the correct idea of marriage is not defined by the law, but by that moral truth.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46150832]When subjective morals are treated as if they were objective, then you might as well call them objective. The entire purpose of the gay marriage movement is to force their subjective morals on everybody and they refer to those who disagree as bigots and morally inferior to themselves. You may think that they have subjective morals, but they act as if they were objective. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] With that said, whether the people's morals in question are objective or not is irrelevant to the point. They are still appealing to some moral truth beyond the law. By doing so they are implicitly claiming that the correct idea of marriage is not defined by the law, but by that moral truth.[/QUOTE] So are you saying you wouldn't enforce your view through any means? Through social ostracism or through laws and culture? They act as if they are the best thing they can believe in. What else should they do? You certainly aren't one who can say that without applying it to yourself. So is the law the final word? Are laws not subject to a feedback loop caused by the change of times, opinions, people, circumstances, and knowledge that further change the laws, generally through the proper political channels? So if something became law, do you subscribe that the law is correct? Is there ever a time to petition for the law to change? How does one determine these things? Tell me.

[QUOTE=01271;46149274] However to this and at the risk of going off-topic I say that both the cdc and Canada's health research disagree with you. Based on research made in 2011 and 2012,the incidence of hiv cases among my own sexual orientation account for the majority of new hiv cases every year. :<[/QUOTE] I knew HIV was re-emerging in the last ten years but I didn't know it was like that over there. That's really sad, gay people in particular should be aware of it, it hasn't been that long. I suppose there's also that disturbing "gift-giving" practice here and there. So fucking bizarre :<

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46152132]So are you saying you wouldn't enforce your view through any means? Through social ostracism or through laws and culture?[/QUOTE] If anything it makes more sense for one who believes in objective morals to try and propagate said morals, as they are the true ones, leaving the rest to be perversions of the truth. What does not make sense is people trying to propagate morals that they intellectually claim are subjective as once you make that admission, there's no difference between propagating the idea that mayonnaise in club sandwiches is disgusting and the subjective idea that it is right for marriage to be defined as a contractual agreement between individuals who feel affection for each other. It seems to me that subjective morals are somewhat of an oxymoron as you cannot reasonably get morally dogmatic about subjective opinions. A better title is subjective opinions on life styles. The idea of someone personally wanting marriage to be a contractual agreement between individuals who merely feel affection towards each other is perfectly understandable to me (though from an external perspective it surprises me that anyone would want that). However, zealously attaining such an end via socio-political avenues that involve methods such as lobbying for legislation, fining businesses opposed or publicly ridiculing people for supporting the contrary view is not indicative of a person who simply holds a subjective opinion. Let's be honest here, even if you claim that your view on this matter is subjective you treat it as if if everyone ought to conform to it (meaning you treat it as if it were objective). So ultimately in the case of gay marriage, perhaps subjective morals is the best title for the reasoning behind it as only an oxymoron could properly portray the inherent dissonance in a subjective opinion (at least claimed to be) being treated as an objective fact. [QUOTE]They act as if they are the best thing they can believe in. What else should they do? You certainly aren't one who can say that without applying it to yourself.[/QUOTE] What makes it the best thing they can believe in? Why ought they to pursue the best thing they can believe in?

So in your mind the assumption ones morals are objective is justification to enforce them? That argument about subjective morals makes no sense to me. Neither does your analogy. Unless you know, you think peoples rights are equivalent to food tastes.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46153150]So in your mind the assumption ones morals are objective is justification to enforce them?[/QUOTE] No, I think that an objective morality when applied on the civic scale brings about prosperity in the society it is applied to, you would see the advantages to employing it over any other. [QUOTE]That argument about subjective morals makes no sense to me. Neither does your analogy. Unless you know, you think peoples rights are equivalent to good tastes.[/QUOTE] Tell me one significant difference between a subjective opinion about what is right and a subjective opinion about the taste of a particular candy bar that makes the former at all more important than the latter.

Okay, so there's no way to argue with you. Unless I can use an objective scale, which neither of us can, to prove our given moralities there's no discussion to be had with you when you do believe you have an objective scale. There's nothing that I can say or demonstrate that can combat your core faith that there's an objectively defined moral code. I believe that people who hold subjective beliefs have the ability to have discourse that has value in a way no objective system allows for. I believe this can help make a better system.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46153216]Okay, so there's no way to argue with you. Unless I can use an objective scale, which neither of us can, to prove our given moralities there's no discussion to be had with you when you do believe you have an objective scale. There's nothing that I can say or demonstrate that can combat your core faith that there's an objectively defined moral code. I believe that people who hold subjective beliefs have the ability to have discourse that has value in a way no objective system allows for. I believe this can help make a better system.[/QUOTE] You're criticizing me for my unflinching idea of morality and then restating your own unflinching idea of morality regardless of my criticisms of it. I'd like to ask you three previous questions about your position again: What makes it the best thing they can believe in? Why ought they to pursue the best thing they can believe in? What difference is there between an opinion on what is right and an opinion of the taste of a food that elevates one above the other?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153250]What difference is there between an opinion on what is right and an opinion of the taste of a food that elevates one above the other?[/QUOTE] Because not liking brussel sprouts never denied someone else on the other side of the country a life of enjoying brussel sprouts. Marriage includes over a thousand federal rights, benefits, and responsibilities. Are you going to tell me that >1k additional rights and benefits is equivalent to dietary preferences?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153250]You're criticizing me for my unflinching idea of morality and then restating your own unflinching idea of morality regardless of my criticisms of it.[/QUOTE] Why do you think it's unflinching? There's literally no evidence of that. [QUOTE]What makes it the best thing they can believe in?[/QUOTE] Now you're misphrasing what I said, and in the way you say it, it's an entirely different message. It's the best thing they think is right. It can change, it's a subjective opinion influenced by knowledge. It isn't "Unflinching". You can't criticize someone for both having a subjective opinion too weak to be argued or discussed, and too strong an opinion for self questioning simultaneously. [QUOTE]Why ought they to pursue the best thing they can believe in?[/QUOTE] It's up to them really. [QUOTE]What difference is there between an opinion on what is right and an opinion of the taste of a food that elevates one above the other?[/QUOTE] How about I rephrase this so you can answer an extremely obtuse question as well. What objectively denotes something to taste better and how does this analogy help you explain away that people can hold various opinions on what's right without there being a conflict of reality?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117]If anything it makes more sense for one who believes in objective morals to try and propagate said morals, [b]as they are the true ones[/b], leaving the rest to be perversions of the truth. [/QUOTE] To said person in question, but that does not making them objectively "right" or "correct". You would need to demonstrate not only the possibility of objective morals, but the morals that are objective. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] What does not make sense is people trying to propagate morals that they intellectually claim are subjective as once you make that admission, there's no difference between propagating the idea that mayonnaise in club sandwiches is disgusting and the subjective idea that it is right for marriage to be defined as a contractual agreement between individuals who feel affection for each other.[/quote] If morals aren't objective and "set in stone" so to speak, then they must be derived from others as to what is acceptable. Since there is no proof that there are such things as "objective" morals; then it would seem they are each person's own guiding beliefs based on culture and religion. One's culture or religion may influence them to dislike Ham; this is however not sound reasoning to make it Law. The same with marriage. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] It seems to me that subjective morals are somewhat of an oxymoron as you cannot reasonably get morally dogmatic about subjective opinions. A better title is subjective opinions on life styles. [/QUOTE] Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Morals: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. That is an oxymoron? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] The idea of someone personally wanting marriage to be a contractual agreement between individuals who merely feel affection towards each other is perfectly understandable to me (though from an external perspective it surprises me that anyone would want that). [/QUOTE] Wait, isn't it already this, except a hetro only club? It's [i]merely[/i] affection? What is so special about heterosexual marriages that gay marriage lack? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] However, zealously attaining such an end via socio-political avenues that involve methods such as lobbying for legislation, fining businesses opposed or publicly ridiculing people for supporting the contrary view is not indicative of a person who simply holds a subjective opinion. [/quote] Someone is free to act on their morals, if that demands them to not support companies that are anti-marriage equality, then so be it I presume. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] Let's be honest here, even if you claim that your view on this matter is subjective you treat it as if if everyone ought to conform to it (meaning you treat it as if it were objective). [/quote] Logic is about as objective as you can get; it merely cares about the state of things. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] So ultimately in the case of gay marriage, perhaps subjective morals is the best title for the reasoning behind it as only an oxymoron could properly portray the inherent dissonance in a subjective opinion (at least claimed to be) being treated as an objective fact. [/QUOTE] Except no one here claimed it was objective fact? Only you have claimed objective morality. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153117] What makes it the best thing they can believe in? Why ought they to pursue the best thing they can believe in?[/QUOTE] They don't, but if they are trying to make it apply to everyone else they must have footing for their proposal. The point here is that unless proven, there seem to be no objective morals, only laws that apply to anyone living in the land; laws that must be agreed upon. If one is to put forward a law that would ban gay marriage; then they should be expected to provide evidence for why it should outlawed: "I think I have objective morals that say it's bad" is not a valid reason. To be fair, if we simply did away with Marriage, made Civil Unions inherit the legal properties a "marriage" has and then allow anyone to call it (not officially) marriage, then it would fix all of this, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;46154146] To be fair, if we simply did away with Marriage, made Civil Unions inherit the legal properties a "marriage" has and then allow anyone to call it (not officially) marriage, then it would fix all of this, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] I think paring away all of the festering gangrene of religious influence from contemporary life and culture would fix a lot more than just the gay marriage issue

I'm gonna go ahead and say it is a slippery slope. For example, homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. So did pedophilia, and now it's a sexual identity thing. Marriage used to be something sacred. It was between one race, two genders and unbreakable. Now it's just a contract between two individuals which paves the way for polygamy. I think we should do away with marriage altogether. It's not like they are gonna do anything differently if they're allowed to marry.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46158291]I'm gonna go ahead and say it is a slippery slope. For example, homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. [B]So did pedophilia[/B], and now it's a sexual identity thing. Marriage used to be something sacred. It was between [B]one race[/B], two genders and [B]unbreakable[/B]. Now it's just a contract between two individuals which [B]paves the way for polygamy[/B]. I think we should do away with marriage altogether. It's not like they are gonna do anything differently if they're allowed to marry.[/QUOTE] Holy fucking shit, I don't give a fuck about that last sentence at all, the fact you posted the bolded things is pretty terrible. Paedophillia is still considered a disorder and likely will be forever as there is no reason to be fucking kids. Marriage has never been "sacred", it's always been a contract to bind you to one or more women (historically almost as slaves).

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46158400]Holy fucking shit, I don't give a fuck about that last sentence at all, the fact you posted the bolded things is pretty terrible. Paedophillia is still considered a disorder and likely will be forever as there is no reason to be fucking kids. Marriage has never been "sacred", it's always been a contract to bind you to one or more women (historically almost as slaves).[/QUOTE] First of all pedophilia is recognized as a sexual identity thing now. I'm not making that up. Also what are you talking about marriage not ever being sacred, and of it having to do with polygamy? In the past marriage was taken very sacredly. You weren't allowed to get divorced. Instead you had to prove that your marriage was invalid in the first place. Polygamy was not accepted within most of the world (it still isn't), except in some Muslim countries.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46150832]When subjective morals are treated as if they were objective, then you might as well call them objective. The entire purpose of the gay marriage movement is to force their subjective morals on everybody and they refer to those who disagree as bigots and morally inferior to themselves. You may think that they have subjective morals, but they act as if they were objective.[/quote] How are they forcing their morals on others? They just want their love to be treated like everyone else's. Do you count having people not discriminate against them as "forcing their morals"? [QUOTE=sgman91;46150832]With that said, whether the people's morals in question are objective or not is irrelevant to the point. They are still appealing to some moral truth beyond the law. By doing so they are implicitly claiming that the correct idea of marriage is not defined by the law, but by that moral truth.[/QUOTE] To me, it seems more like they're appealing to a moral truth of "treat people equally under the law" rather than a moral truth of gay marriage. They wouldn't care about gay marriage if straight couples couldn't get married either. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153179]No, I think that an objective morality when applied on the civic scale brings about prosperity in the society it is applied to, you would see the advantages to employing it over any other.[/quote] Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East operate under objective moralities. Their citizens seem to be doing pretty well. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46153179]Tell me one significant difference between a subjective opinion about what is right and a subjective opinion about the taste of a particular candy bar that makes the former at all more important than the latter.[/QUOTE] One deals with morals and how people should treat each other, and the other deals with personal taste that only deals with that individual. [QUOTE=hexpunK;46158400]Holy fucking shit, I don't give a fuck about that last sentence at all, the fact you posted the bolded things is pretty terrible. Paedophillia is still considered a disorder and likely will be forever as there is no reason to be fucking kids. Marriage has never been "sacred", it's always been a contract to bind you to one or more women (historically almost as slaves).[/QUOTE] It may have been considered sacred at some point, but before that, yes, it was a trade agreement.

You clearly don't have a good grasp on marriage. Marriage was primarily a way of owning property. Of course it was "sacred", men and their property was at stake. Paedophelia is a condition causing attraction to a certain group, the attraction itself is of no consequence. The actions are what are worth worrying about. This was to millysoose.

It was considered sacred by the whole of Europe with small exceptions during the reformation. If it wasn't sacred then nobody would mind who got married and there wouldn't be laws against forms of marriage. I was simply pointing out that we've already abandoned three aspects of marriage to demonstrate that there is a slippery slope. (marriage is between one race, marriage is for life, marriage is between two genders. So why not marriage between kids and adults? I'm not advocating it if you're wondering.)

Traditionally it was sacred due to property rights. What makes "tradition" right and what defines a slippery slope from "tradition" if tradition has no inherit status quo? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] Women were property. Do you want to go back to that?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46158748]Traditionally it was sacred due to property rights. What makes "tradition" right and what defines a slippery slope from "tradition" if tradition has no inherit status quo? [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] Women were property. Do you want to go back to that?[/QUOTE] I don't understand your comment. It sounds like you're advocating people marrying children because tradition is not inherently right. Marriage was traditionally a religious institution. It was defined by the bible and the church. And it wasn't just about property. Why would you think that? These standards were the only thing preventing people from marrying kids like they do in the middle east. Now they're evaporating.