WAG

Thanks for getting an actual source, seriously. I read a good portion of it...Unfortunately, the author admits Because there are so few surviving records pertaining to family and sexual matters, we know little of the most ancient cultures' specific practices, namely, those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and their environs. However, after examining the few pertinent records (including legal documents), as well as the literature, myths, and artifacts of this period, one might tentatively conclude that most ancient cultures did not prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did many stigmatize them. Although the evidence is debatable, some of the ancient cultures may have treated same-sex relationships similarly to marriages involving different-sex partners. The openly homosexual professor/author (doubt he has bias on this topic) consistently demonstrates individual interpretation ("may have" and "perhaps") throughout the text and even admits there is not much evidence to support the case for same sex marriages in ancient times (accepted relationships, yes.. marriages, no). He even states the evidence is debatable. This source doesn't inspire much confidence, but "Hey! He taught at Yale!" I'll leave the topic of liberal indoctrination by academia for another discussion.

Your Wikipedia "facts" (assume you typed in same sex marriage) basically refute your own argument. After reading that section of the page, almost all the examples point to the fact that homosexual relationships existed (big surprise) but were not traditional unions within their various cultures. The Mesopotamia statement doesn't even include a useful reference (ibid, wtf?). Funny how you leave the most important part of that section out too: It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[85] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[86] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[87] Referencing the interpretation of obscure ancient texts sure is convenient when trying to support an agenda, but when it comes to the most followed and enduring religions of our time, ancient texts and scrolls quickly become scoffed and discredited.

I'm against gay marriage (Wow! Did he just say that?). That should have been pretty obvious already smart guy. The argument against gay marriage has been very well documented and I'm not going to regurgitate it for your understanding. You simply choose not to listen and fall back on the common liberal tactic of belittling your opponents discussion: "playbook has been whittled away." Now we are stuck with the illegitimate decisions of the SCOTUS Prop 8/DOMA ruling. You can read Scalia's dissent for a real decision. I am not the one that brought up bestiality and inanimate objects into this discussion but thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I was specifically discussing polygamy and incest which involves consenting adults. And YES, I will look at you same sex marriage advocates and homosexuals in the eye and ask "Why is it okay for you to marry another person of the same sex yet not allow someone who loves multiple people to wed?" Again, if loving someone else is the sole criterion for marriage then how can you dare deny others that same right? Perhaps you belittle that argument because you realize it reveals your hypocrisy regarding civil rights. What it boils down to is that we draw a different line in the sand between right (male and female; the natural law of mankind that led to the creation of you and me) and wrong (everything else). The sad thing is that you are willing to fudge that gray area and deny the "rights" of other people's sexual desires yet insist that we are the ones that are close-minded. At least Vertigo is consistent and not a hypocrite. Finally, for your edification regarding the flawed 50% divorce stat: https://psychcentral....-divorce/all/1/

...but neither was same-sex marriage. Therefore, you are redefining it

I find your post to be humorous by the irony of its message and the use of the word bigotry (noun: intolerance toward those that hold different opinions from oneself). Name calling is a poor way to argue a cause and is a cheap way to stymie debate.

So am I correct when I say you believe our "predetermined" sexual desires should be protected and considered as a nondiscriminatory class along with that of race, nationality, and sex? If emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction (feelings) are to be protected just like race, then you are correct in agreeing that a predisposition to having desires toward siblings and multiple lovers should also be "protected" (and I applaud you for your consistency) What a wonderful society that will/must be...

Original poster stated this was the first openly gay member he has encountered. I'll assume that was not a preconceived notion and rather a statement of fact given we have repealed DADT. If it is the former, your statement is valid.

Are they lesbians? Otherwise this is an apples and oranges argument...

While we are in the business of redefining marriage, why not start legalizing polygamy and incest? If a loving/committed relationship is the sole criterion required for marriage and sexual orientation is none of our business, then what right do we (you) have to limit sibling lovers and those that desire to wed their many lovers? Under what circumstances do we draw the line? A prejudice is either wrong or it isn't...

No.

Or you accuse him of sexual harassment which is exactly what that is...

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow that is SO funny....