I apologize for putting my answers to both your and the Prof's points in one post Plane, I was in a hurry for work this morning, so I hope you'll accept that I wasn't trying to minimize your point of view.
The government has seen it to be in the governments interest to forbid marrage in several circumstances ,
close relitives answered above, see my reply to Rich
interspecies an animal cannot give consent, even a talking parrot
single sex this is what we're debating here (I assume you're referencing same sex)
corpses a corpse also cannot give consent (only to vote)
bigamists if it's consensual bigamy, I have no problem. If it's not consensual, then a person should not be allowed to marry twice, as marriage requires the consent of both partners.
underage the age of consent varies in different states (and countries). As I said above, a marriage requires consent of both parties, if one is not of the age of consent then there is no marriage.
do all the people who want to have non-traditional marrages feel that they are repressed and ill treated ?
I don't feel repressed or ill treated. I simply want what's ours, or what should be.
Because I have the right to marry a woman but not a horse is there an inequality twards those who would rather marry a horse?
No, because a horse cannot give its consent.
Why does the government have an intrest in preventing any of these catagorys of non traditional marrage?
Other than same-sex marriage, consent cannot be given, thus a marriage cannot be formed.
If someone wanted to marry many underage horses of the same sex as he , and of course we are talking of dead horses , who is hurt?
Conceivably, no one. However, a person could NOT marry many dead underage horses, because once again, there is NO consenting party.
Is this just a legacy problem?
No, and I notice that you didn't answer my question, so again: Marriage possibly predates all government, and certainly our government, but it needs a Constitutional Amendment to survive, because it's under threat, attack, assault, pick your buzzword?
Thousands of years of considering a marrage to be the union of a man and a woman has produced an inertia
I never said that. For the vast majority of that thousand years, government benefits weren't granted to married partners, nor were marriages recorded or licensed. Also polygamy was very common, if not prevalent, so that's not a man and a woman.
Where were the homosexuals of anchient times lax in establishing their brand ?
It's vaguely insulting to hear gay marriage referred to as a brand. Are you denying that there were homosexuals in ancient times?
What was the origin of the public reguarding them with horror?
Being as how homosexuality as anathema is only common to Western Civilization, and some Eastern and Native Americans believed it to be far more spiritual than heterosexuality, I'd have to say that XO is correct in the lineage from Judaism to Christianity.
Marrage is as marrage does , right now two guys can team up and take on the world without government sanction , they just can't call it marrage on a leagal document .
If, as you state Plane, marriage is as marriage does, then that means that marriage has no clear definition. Right? If 20 years from now, gay marriage is legalized, does that mean that you will feel obligated to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage? Because that's what I'm getting from that statement.
How long should this model prove itself successfull before the public and the government accepts it as such?
Slavery was successful for thousands of years Plane. Civilizations were built on it. 140 years ago it was viewed as acceptable and natural to buy the freedom of another person and subject them to the whim of the owner, in this country! So I've got to tell you I'm not buying into the whole legacy/tradition thing.
According to the theroy of "Triumph of the Meme " good habits perpetuate themselves .
And homosexuality, despite the near constant attempt at eradication, still survives. It might thrive or perpetuate, but it's still here thousands of years later. So either a. it's born with, which would allow your theory to retain validity, or it's a choice, which causes the loss of the validity of your theory. I don't know what camp, if either, you fall into (personally, I think it's a little of both), but it seems to me that a lot of conservatives want to have that one both ways (not necessarily you).
If it was an advantage to a society , what enabled another sort of society to outcompete?
Perhaps there was no competition. Perhaps one group did their thing and another did theirs.
I don't feel obliged to build my opponents argument , FM is very able , as are you.
Thanks for the compliment Plane. You're quite capable yourself. I really do enjoy these debates, even if nothing is really gained by them.
