Easiest answer would’ve been, Yes it is. It’s the level of argument you were given, why bother trying to give any more?
In other words all this carping about the judiciary and all of these other side issues was pointless.
Melchior, can you tell us how it will hurt *you *to let two men get married to each other?
I can answer this one for him. It won’t hurt him because it’s impossible for them to get married.
Wow, this is easy! I should have learned this method of argument long ago!
It deprives my vote of significance when a judge univocally overrules the votes of thousands of voters. I voted for the constitutional amendment in Ohio.
Anyone shocked by this please raise your hand. Anyone?
They might think they are, but it’s a ‘cargo-cult marriage’.
Ah, sour grapes.
So Melchior can’t stand it when someone calls a marriage a marriage, but has no problem abusing terms like fallacy and cargo cult. There’s a stunner.
So you support gay marriage in Washington and other states where it was approved by popular vote? Or do you think your squeamishness about it should univocally overrule their votes?
ETA: side note - I like the irony of assigning “univocally” a new meaning of “all by himself”, when its definition is “having one meaning only.”
Oh let me try! That’s argument ad populum. Marriage can’t mean two men so it doesn’t matter what a majority says.
And how does that hurt you?
Here it is, folks. If society and English-speakers support and allow same-sex marriage for a thousand years, Melchior will still refuse to accept that it exists.
I wonder if there are still folks who don’t believe interracial marriage exists?
So your argument is that same sex marriage isn’t “marriage,” it’s just a thing that people call marriage, that the law refers to and recognizes as marriage, and that bestows the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage?
And which, if it keeps on like that long enough, will acquire the force of custom?
Obviously not, as it was a declaration that argument is pointless, along the lines of:
[QUOTE=Thomas Paine]
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
[/QUOTE]
If it doesn’t exist, how can you have a problem with it? What other nonexistent phenomena would you like to see banned?
The definition of marriage in Egypt is one man and several women.
The definition of marriage in the US 10 years ago was one man and one woman. Today in many places it is one {man,woman} and one {man,woman.} I’d say the difference between our old and new definitions is less than that between our definition and the Egyptian one. Do you not call what they have marriage?
Is it just me or does this thread read like the battle of wits from The Princess Bride?
With Melchior starring as Vizzini.
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’ve made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’re just stalling now.
Vizzini: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’re trying to trick me into giving away something. It won’t work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Man in Black: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don’t see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let’s drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
mods–I hope the part I quoted falls within fair use allowance, I felt I had to quote this much to cover the concept.
So your vote now matches your arguments. I call this progress!
A good argument against SSM?