The Forum > General Discussion > ABC's Q&A is on the nose
ABC's Q&A is on the nose
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Page 17
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
Marriage has been a fluid concept in most (probably all) societies concept since its origins. The idea of marriage being about love is actually relatively recent development. It’s been a form of trade and a way of forming alliances at various times in various societies.
But even if marriage had never before changed, that still wouldn't be an argument against changing it, and to insist that it was would be a fallacious appeal to tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
<<There are no gods, so nothing can be 'divinely-inspired'.>>
Of course. So then how do you justify your insistence that marriage can never be inclusive of same-sex couples? From what authority or source is this supposed truth coming?
<<God, I wish I cared.>>
Obviously you do because you express your disdain towards such gay activism quite frequently. The question is why do you care? If the thought of two blokes kissing just irks you, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that your stance against same-sex marriage is in any way rational.