SSM Debate starts in Oz

[Pahoran]

Nor did changing the definition of marriage to include inter racial marriage lead to an acceptance of pedophilia....

Are you still dealing with the fact that the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage to include inter racial couples as well?

May I protest right now against this blatantly revisionist bit of propaganda?

Anti-miscegenation laws, held by a minority of US states and very few other places in the English-speaking world, did not establish the "definition of marriage." The Supreme Court in Loving did not "change the definition of marriage." Accordingly, this is not a "fact" at all, but the very opposite.

"Gay" advocates would do well to avoid mentioning Loving v. Virginia in their agitprop. The SCOTUS relied upon the presumed traditional definition of marriage when they ruled:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

It is immediately obvious that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" because it promotes the continuance of the human species. Does "gay marriage" promote the continuance of the human species? No, it does not; it creates genetic cul-de-sacs. This may well be a good thing in the case of the individuals involved, but it has zero survival value. When the SCOTUS talked about marriage as "fundamental to our very existence and survival," it is apparent that they didn't even imagine marriage as circumscribing any but heterosexual relationships.

Now you can possibly argue that that should be changed; but please drop the pretense that it was changed in Loving. Because it wasn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: This has degenerated into a fight about gay marriage.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff