I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been. You created an argument which imposed a demand on the poster. The apparent thrust of your argument, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is that if someone could not match your stated criteria their position was somehow undercut.
I was attempting to point out that your criteria were wholly subjective and do not actually hold with respect to the accepted legitimacy for laws. That is to say the poster need not fit your criteria for their position to be valid.
I suppose in the context of the present discussion, it would mean heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual. At least, that is what I take it to mean when people talk about normal in this context. I put it in quotes in an effort to show that I don't think there is necessarily anything normal about heterosexuality or abnormal about homosexuality.
But then you realize your whole argument is circular, correct? You have created your own definition or perception of normality and are using that to shape your question, despite the fact that no one else has to agree. Only by assuming your position to be true, does your argument become valid.
Certainly what homosexuals want to do is not exactly the same in every way, or they wouldn't be homosexuals, would they?
You said exactly the same way in your earlier post which is partly what drew me into replying. Other people look at the differences and cue in on those as important. Apparently you are cueing in solely on reason, which is not itself sufficient.
Let me give you an example. Many people want to be chefs or enjoy preparing the food of others. They all have the same "reason". So did Typhoid Mary. Yet society took it into their own to prevent her from doing such things because of OTHER aspects related to her engaging in those functions.
You may not know of many gays who state another reason for wanting to be married, but I seriously don't remember anyone trying to prevent gays from marrying as focusing on their reason to get married. That is besides from trying to "normalize" gayness in the culture, which you seem willing to accept as a possible reason for some.
I asked for a logical reason to make a distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage because this is a thread about gay marriage. If you would like to start separate threads for any other type of marriage, I'd happily discuss whether there is a logical basis, or any other basis, for such distinctions in those threads.
Ahem... by which I take it you did not read the OP? This thread certainly isn't about logical reasons to make a distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage, and certainly isn't a thread to use your criteria for doing so. Thus the author and anyone else can throw your above statement back at you.
As it is I was not trying to discuss all laws, though I suppose I could, I was only meaning to discuss laws about codifying relationsips. I'm sorry for not being clearer.
Given that legal codes regarding relationships are not based on logic at all, why should anyone have to find a logical reason for not accepting homosexual marriages? Why must this be true for homosexuals when it is not going to be applied to others? You may want to parse it out in order to avoid potential hypocrisy, but my question is legitimate given the argument you have advanced.
As far as miscegenation laws go, the currrent argument against homosexual marriage is the traditional meaning or definition of marriage in our culture. As I pointed out earlier that was not true for miscegenation. Even those in support of miscegenation laws stated that it was an alteration from traditional definitions, simply a change that they felt was necessary.
And it might be pointed out that the criteria most people are likely to focus on when judging relationships would be the same for interracial couples, namely being able to support the family you are going to build via heterosexual intercourse.
Edited by holmes, : removing some of the pepper
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2