Some people have filed lawsuits, some states have had their legislatures legalize SSM, some states have had popular referenda that legalized SSM, and thousands of gay couples have gotten legally married. And the polling shows that the American public supports legalized SSM (and, therefore, recognizes that it is indeed ‘marriage’) by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
So it’s not false.
How do you feel about the popular referenda in several states that have legalized SSM?
Misguided masses. Obviously. there are many ways to influence people besides logic.
…and has always involved mixed sexes. Duh.
That is changing. Duh.
You’re saying it’s not the job of a judge to evaluate the merit of the evidence presented in a case over which they are presiding? I thought that was their entire job. Isn’t that why we call them “judges” in the first place?
Is that what you’re trying to do here?
If you read Melchior’s arguments about marriage - if for some reason you choose to subject yourself to this stuff - he often seems to be arguing that our concept of marriage is so utterly arbitrary and illogical that if you change a single element of our society’s concept of marriage even a tiny bit, the whole thing will fall apart because it will become obvious to everyone that marriage is useless and a complete sham that survives only because it’s customary. The remarkable thing is that this is supposed to be a defense of traditional marriage.
How long do the masses have to be “misguided” before you would acknowledge that custom and traditions for marriage have changed? 5 years? 50 years? 500 years?
Oh, I wouldn’t bet on it. There is still the “pbbbbth” argument. That tends to go over really well with judges - the case law is full of wins for that one. And the “nyh-nyh, you can’t make me” argument. The “I know you are, but what am I” argument has a strong history. But I think the final winning argument will be “yo momma.” Thats the nuclear option to be pulled out as a last resort.
I don’t understand your post.
There are many different kinds of customs in different cultures, but those that derive from biological imperatives tend to be more consistent across cultures. Read EO Wilson’s Sociobiology or On Human Nature.
I’m involved in a same-sex relationship, and it’s entirely possible (albeit unlikely) for it to result in a naturally conceived child.
That’s OK. It wasn’t intended for you, and it’s an analysis of your argument that you wouldn’t perform. Still, that’s the viewpoint you’ve expressed upon at great … great … great … great length.
Marriage customs are the cultural expression of biological imperatives. They have been outlined above. Sexual unions that are in principle unfruitful are discouraged.
Read some Darwin.
Fallacy of desperately trying to change the subject.
You have made this thread worth reading, which I didn’t think was possible. Outstanding.
Such as women beyond childbearing years, or those with fertility problems?
This is pretty highly false. There are lots of traditions and customs of sexual unions that are unfruitful that have been encouraged, including from some cultures that have lasted for millenia.
In a previous thread, you made a claim to some expertise in logic and philosophy, despite manifestly being unable to accurately identify or define even the most basic of logical fallacies.
Is it your intention to make a similar showing for ecology? Because there’s absolutely nothing that Darwin ever wrote that’s even slightly relevant to the discussion at hand. But if you’d like to pretend to undeserved expertise again, I look forward to seeing you once again be eviscerated by people who actually understand the material being debated.
And I’m the only one that’s confused here?