Yes, I am, and that’s why I mentioned it. If you want to allow same-sex ‘marriages’ you will have to allow multiple-spouse ‘marriages’ because there is no more support for the one than for the other.
Repeating this doesn’t make it true. There is such a thing, in culture, law, and the dictionary.
I don’t oppose such things. I think they were fine then and should be fine now. I simply wanted to make the point that some people are very selective about citing precedent: they cite it as support only when it is convenient and consonant with their point of view. Otherwise, they say ‘well this is the 21st century’. You cannot have it both ways!
Well, I’m just saying they most likely can be challenged on the same basis, and if you want the one you will have to accept the other.
Because I didn’t feel it was worth my time.
It’s pretty obvious it goes further than this. I’m sure most of the people who oppose gay marriage would be happy to go back to the “good old days” when homosexuality itself was illegal.
Don’t let **Karol ** hear you saying that!
The law is easy with same sex marriage. Spousal rights exist no matter what the gender, no re-wording needed.
Multiple spouses will require new laws to deal with communal property, medical decisions, divorce, etc. Far different and much more complex.
No, it’s because there is no valid response you can make to his points.
No, ‘just deal with it’
I am under no obligation of any kind to post a reply to anything. It is *my *choice, not yours, and no inferences should be drawn from that.
Of course it is. Your refusal just shows how limited your “argument” is.
You are forgetting that words change meaning over time. Marriage is one of those words. Just recently the word “literally” changed meaning. Now a “real” definition of literally is “figuratively” because so many people were using “literally” that way. Culture changes, and words follow suit. So you either adapt with the times or you get left behind.
I have no idea what you are talking about wrt ‘literally’. I understand what it means and have no experience with anyone who does not.
The ‘natural’ change of meaning has nothing to do with this and you know it. Legal definitions are made by courts and legislation (including popular referenda).
This is hilarious. I truly cannot understand someone saying that same-sex marriage doesn’t exist. It’s like saying rap music or deep dish pizza doesn’t exist. You might not like it, you might think it’s distasteful, maybe you want to call it a different name, you might even want laws against it, but to say it doesn’t exist is so crazy.
A few years ago, someone was telling me about how homosexuality was wrong, and part of his argument was that two men can’t have sex, that it was always rape. Later I was wishing I had asked him to explain this, but at the time my mind was just baffled, I don’t know if I said anything.
Inferences will be drawn
This has nothing to do with homosexual activity, which I do not oppose. Straw man argument.
The meanings of words change. Culture changes. Traditions change.
Same-sex marriage is a thing – the meaning of the word “marriage” is changing. The meanings of words come from how people use them – if most people use the word “marriage” to include codified and joined same-sex couples, then the meaning of this word has changed.
If most people include same sex couples in their use of the word “marriage” (which we are rapidly approaching, if we haven’t already gotten there), then it no longer means what you think it does, Melchior.
And I’ll repeat my question from post #80 (since Melchior ignored it):
If same-sex marriage is legal, and if the vast majority accept it, and it’s common for a hundred years, would you admit that at that point it’s become custom? How about a thousand years? Is there any point at which it would become part of custom, or is there something about same-sex marriage that would preclude it ever from becoming custom?
After discovering that “Don’t let those people get married because ewwww” is not regarded as an actual argument, they’ve fallen back on “Don’t let those people get married because derrrrp”. That’s not regarded as an actual argument either, but it’s pretty much all they have left.
This doesn’t address a single point raised, and isn’t even close to a rebuttal that your nonsense “we’ve had the same definition of marriage for 40,000 years” argument isn’t an appeal to tradition OR argumentum ad populum.
You have yet to provide any reason why “marriage” cannot refer to the joining of two same sex individuals. There are plenty of usages of “marriage” referring to joining two identical things - why not people?
His point wasn’t about arguments against homosexual activity, it was about absurd arguments, like denying the existence of gay marriage.