Because of my own personal experiences in the red state I live in.
and in my personal experience among my own generation there is a hell of a lot less love and support for the LGBT among the right.
No, you keep running back to religion, which you admit yourself by conflating including other religious views as "secular."
That’s because you can’t grasp my point. It’s comparing different cultures and their ideas and where they fall into similarity. If you have a running strain of similarity that runs between different and/or isolated cultures, you have two options. Either it’s a complete and total coincidence that all these groups happened to come up with very similar ideas, or it is derived from something they have in common with one another, which is humanity. With marriage in particular it’s almost exclusively between men and women and almost everyone has some form of marriage as a social institution. I mean hell, polygamy and harems were where they valued more kids above much everything as more wives = more kids= Much more guaranteed heirs. I also explained how in the lower classes, particularly farmers, no kids means provided you get to age where you have trouble working the fields you basically starve to death unless you can find someone else to help you, but typically it was your kids, and more kids equals more workers equals better farm. It’s one of the biggest drives within all species to procreate down to single celled life, with our specific species we form longer lasting bonds very often and we raise our children with both parents more often than not, and have done so again across societies. This shows what the main drive of marriage is, it’s an extension of our desire to procreate and how we as a species are made to have children and raise them. I mean literally go play CK lol. It spells this out pretty well in how you lose the game.
This is nothing more than a semantic argument, and it falls apart considering that you already tried being ideologically consistent by claiming you don't think elderly people should get married either.
It’s not semantic. There’s a big difference between this is the main thing and this is the only thing. If it’s the main thing that means that it’s the most important, but there are other reasons. If it’s the only thing, then there exist no others. You say that I’m saying only reason because then all you have to do is bring up another reason, and then if that reason even just exists my argument is beaten. The problem is, I agree with everything else you’ve brought up as it relates to marriage and what purposes it fulfilled, I just don’t think they are more important than having children.
I don't have to pretend anything. You may not have explicitly said this but you've never made a point of bringing it up until after you were called out about it. If this had really been part of your argument, it would have been an easy example to use to show that you were being consistent about it. As it is, I get the impression that you hadn't really considered this weakness in your argument until I had brought it up.
It’s not a part of my argument because it’s much less relevant and I explained why, because again, again, again, ability to reproduce is not the only thing that divides men and women. I don’t think the elderly should be banned from marriage but I think it’s wrong for them to marry, because they’ve almost certainly been married prior, and their marriage isn’t good for bringing up children. Of course I don’t think it’s a good thing, it clearly violates what is laid out as the purpose of marriage in my religion lol. It just doesn’t violate it as badly. There’s a lot of things I think are bad marriages. I think open marriages are bad but I don’t think these should be illegal, as I don’t think adultery should be illegal.
They don't have to be to have equal rights and to be treated equally before the law.
Yeah but I don’t think they should. I think they should have different roles and different
And I say there is no need for this. This is illustrated by the common feminist talking point of there not being a lot of women in the STEM field, in spite of there being so many incentives for them to do so, simply because there aren't that many women who are interested in those types of jobs. But people should not be limited because of how they were born, beyond any actual physical limitations they might have. I also value both masculinity and femininity, but do not think people should be limited by stereotypes or traditional gender roles. I believe people should be allowed to be whatever they desire to be.
People should be encouraged to follow traditional gender roles heavily. Stay at home moms should be paid or heavily subsidized to keep women at home, to help our birthrate stop declining as well as raise wages for men.
Both are true in a sense. That is how the aristocracy did things. On a smaller scale this also took place among the common people, and in some cultures continues to this day.
Sure. Having kids was still more important to most more often than not.
A lot of animals tend to mate for life, and generally this is done to produce offspring. Homosexuality also exists in nature in everything from insects on up to great apes, and this includes couples who also mate for life among animals that tend to do so.
Cool. It still shows you how we ended up with marriage.
I'm not seeing how. And it should be pretty obvious that I'd never go for getting rid of universal suffrage.
Well I think it’s pretty obvious. I mean gun rights are present in America and basically no other democracy to remotely our extent entirely because of the 2A which is intensely anti-democratic. With universal voting the more voters you have the more you drop the lowest common denominator of voter, the less appealing and viable government do nothing becomes as of course people who are less well off will want to government to do something, to say nothing of those who are well off and want the government to do something. Libertarian strains within America survive not through the libertarian party or voting but purely off of the courts and the bill of rights which are entirely and wholly anti-democratic.
Not really. The government makes no such distinction, and the state institution is generally tied up in tax and legal benefits afforded to married couples.
not true. You get a tax credit for your children and dependents.
If one were to make your argument, this would then have to restrict people who are incapable of reproduction from getting married, and you would have a much harder fight there than against same-sex marriage.
I’ve already explained why you don’t lol. You’re completely ignoring the other part about men not being women and how there are intrinsic differences and their marriages are not equal. It goes beyond just the ability to conceive a child.