It’s a fad that will soon pass.
I thought that about digital watches.
Edit: way to dodge the divorce issue, though. Kudos. It’s almost like you have come to the conclusion that gay marriage is wrong and tried to shore it up with bullshit.
If you want to allow opposite sex marriages, you have to allow same sex marriages, because there is no more support for the one than for the other.
People, whose actions (collectively) define what customs and traditions are, and whose use of language (collectively) defines the meanings of words. And people are deciding that marriage can apply to same-sex couples, and that the tradition and custom of marriage is (and should be) changing.
For those who think there’s any chance this will be worthwhile:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=716210&page=2
… which part? Allowing married women to have rights? Recorded history?
Come on, man, me and 1,659,914 of my closest friends are still waiting for your response. About the lunatic activist judges forcing it on the masses. Remember?
This is false. It is only a small minority who have asked for this, and courts have bought their argument.
Gays and lesbians are a small minority. That doesn’t make their rights any less important - and the majority of the public is now in favor of SSM anyway.
I can’t believe you let yourselves shove SSM down your own throats like that.
Yeah, and those uppity blacks should have stayed in the back of the bus too…
I have much to be grateful for, I’m sure.
Factually incorrect – a large majority of Americans (almost 2 to 1) support same-sex marriage. In addition, several non-judicial bodies, like legislatures and popular referenda, have confirmed the legality of gay marriage in various states.
What can I say? We try to be outraged but we don’t have much of a gag reflex left at this point. Just go with it.
Are you arguing against all freely chosen marriages of love now? Or only when the spouses have similar genitalia? Would same sex arranged marriages be okay with you?
The point of marriage was to produce children, and did not have anything to do with ‘romantic love’. In fact, betrothal was a prelude to marriage, and only if a successful pregnancy occurred did marriage follow. No point in allowing that other family to have your money and worldly goods if there are none of your own offspring involved. This same biological imperative is reflected in the practice of killing of cubs by newly dominant male lions.
See:
http://www.medievalsociety.org/2008/03/13/sex-and-marriage-in-the-mid-to-late-medieval-times/
“As I’ve stated before in previous articles, fertility was a very important aspect of a woman, some men took the women to bed to ensure she would produce children before they agreed to marry them.”
Since same-sex unions are inherently infertile…(you can follow the logic)
Why is that a problem?
Mind you, I’m talking about freely consenting adults, not child marriage or bride selling. If more than two adults want to enter into a living arrangement together why is that a problem? How does it cause anyone outside their household a problem? Why does the notion frighten you?
I disagree with your assertion of what is supported, I think there is far more support for SSM than multiple marriage, but if I’m wrong on that so what?
I know an easier way.
So is this the system you’re advocating now? No marriages between infertile people, and the bride must be pregnant first as proof? Do old people get to stay married, or does menopause mandate divorce?
Why are we basing our legal system on medieval customs again? Should we all go find a lord and manor to pledge our allegiance to?
Marriage is a traditional institution that was established for certain purposes:
To produce heirs (fertility was important and infertile women could be dismissed if they could not bear children)
Along with that, fidelity was important to ensure that the children were in fact the husband’s and not the scoundrel’s down the street.
Once you understand how and why marriage was established, you will quickly grasp that the idea of same-sex-marriage is absurd.
What do you mean by ‘support’?
Need I point out the obvious? Baking the wedding cake is not participating in the marriage, regardless of whether it’s a same-sex or opposite-sex marriage.
It is true that anti-discrimination laws limit the freedom of bigots in order to increase the freedom of normal people. But that’s a trade-off I can live with. Reducing the freedom of bigots to practice their bigotry might even be regarded as a net societal good in its own right.