Non-Euclidean Civil Rights.
Sometimes, the shortest path to equality seems like the longest way.
To be honest, I wonder if the Gay/Lesbian community would have been satisfied with a Domestic Partnership that granted all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a Marriage, would the anti-SSMs been so vehemently against it.
And I fail to understand how allowing SSMs threatens the marriage of a mixed sex couple. Maybe because I don’t have access to “The Protocols of the Elders Of Gaydom”, but I really don’t think the “Gay Agenda” calls for after SSM is legal nationwide, forcing hetero couples to divorce and forcing them to marry a same sex partner.
Indeed. That’s probably against custom or something, but whatever, fuck custom if it requires supporting that kind of argumentum ad populum that it’s advocating.
I wonder if it thinks cars ruled the roads for the last 40,000 years so fuck bicycles and pedestrians?
Going back to the OP, if I may:
I think the sentence means this (I don’t agree, I’m just channeling): “Normal kids of normal folks will see same-sex couples [and they might want to imitate them].”
It’s just sneakily worded so that this or that member of a jury might interpret it this way, without saying it out loud so that it could be shown to be false.
Well, to quote Melchior from another currently-ongoing thread, “2000 years ago we had gladiator contests and infant abandonment.”
And, of course, 2000 years ago, someone would’ve been arguing that we can’t change either of those – or anything else – since being in favor of changing one thing means being in favor of changing everything; would’ve been wrong then, would be wrong now.
I think the antis NOW might try to argue they would have been okay with domestic partnerships, but there were states that made it clear that SS domestic partnerships were also not allowed.
And I, while not same-sex oriented, wouldn’t be satisfied with a separate but equal status for someone else.
Wait, I DON’T get to trade in my mom and the ghost of my father? Dammit! 
It would have been an unstable compromise.
On the pro-same-sex side, people would start calling it marriage. “This is my husband.” The First Amendment guarantees their right to do so, and so the word marriage would, over time, have come to mean the same as partnership/union.
On the anti-same-sex side, there would inevitably be states that would impose restrictions and regulations. For instance, not allowing members in a partnership to adopt, etc. The compromise might have started out as equal in all respects, but, just as with abortion rights, the opponents would gradually chip away at it, little by little, in a poorly disguised effort to destroy it.
In Oregon in 2004 when the constitutional amendment prohibiting SSM was on the ballot, the anti-SSM groups insisted it was only the purity of marriage they wanted to protect; they’d be fine with something that granted gays the same legal rights, as long as they didn’t call it marriage. Fast forward a few years when the legislature was debating domestic partnerships, and these same groups complained loudly that the legislature was subverting the will of the voters who, in passing the amendment, clearly didn’t want any kind of legal arrangement possible for gays. Adding to the irony is that in just those few years, opinion had already shifted enough in Oregon that the original amendment probably wouldn’t be passed any more.
So on your questions, no to both. Separate but equal has been tried in our history and fails every time. And when it comes down to it, the anti-SSM groups will not be happy with anything resembling marriage, no matter what it is called.
Equally as vehemently? No, there did seem to be some lesser bigots who were fine with handing over civil rights so long as they came with a official mark of degradation attached. But a whole lot of people did/do in fact oppose civil unions, which is why most of the anti-marriage amendments to state constitutions also ban civil unions.
What an utterly bizarre number to choose.
Civilization - ie, the legal framework in which marriage per se can exist - first appeared on the scene ~10k years ago.
If you expand the term to pre-civilized pairbonding rituals, anatomically modern humans first appeared ~195k years ago, and were certainly in tribal groups right from the start, since that’s pretty much our niche, evolutionarily speaking.
40k is an absurd number, having nothing to do with either potentially relevant development in human history.
Of course, the idea that either definition is has been unchanging for any time period more than a handful of human generations, or even between two contemporaneous groups, is utterly absurd, as is the idea that most of the ‘changes’ you’re claiming are obviously insane weren’t - and aren’t - part of the definition in many of those times and places.
Because I read and quoted he first page before reading the rest…
Um… What? I’m sorry, why should a judge not have the ability to reject a study as bullshit? I mean, sure, if it’s an actual expert study, but where does the decision happen as to who is an expert witness? In this case, I’m sure we can all agree that the judge was perfectly justified - the Regnerus study was one of the worst pieces of sociology I’ve eve seen, and portraying it as evidence that same-sex couples make for bad parents (given that there were a grand total of two same-sex couples raising children polled in the study!) is almost absurdly dishonest.
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM FALLACY!
Also, replace gay marriage with interracial marriage. The logic holds. It’s just that something like 50 years ago, we decided, “you know, this logic is pretty bad logic”. Now it’s history repeating itself again, except that instead of marriage being between two people of the same race, now it’s marriage being between two people of the same gender. The definition of marriage changes. Deal with it.
Laws regarding adultery, bigamy, etc. have no firmer foundation than custom. They’re also dumb and I would like to see them go away.
Says you. I tried to get my kid worked up over that and she thought it sounded awesome. PLZ HLP.
It’s not ‘narrow-minded’ at all.
I was attacked by a dog when I was young and 50+ years later, still have a bit of fear of them. Won’t someone think of the cynophobics and stop this slippery slope?
No at all. Tradition refers to customs, not beliefs. Believing that the sun revolves around the earth is not a tradition or custom.
Why don’t you respond to the rest of his post?
Haven’t you heard of arranged marriages? For most of human history, and still today (especially in some Asian countries), marriages were arranged by parents.
The essence of language is intelligibility. You can’t unilaterally change the meanings of words to justify some action. You cannot call killing someone ‘murder’, for instance, if it is *truly *accidental (a child who darts right out in front of a bus, for example).
It is the very definition of narrow-minded. The irony is totally lost on you, of course.
There is no such thing as ‘same-sex-marriage’ therefore no arguments are needed against it.