For the same reason that marriage != slavery.
Okay. And what reason is that?
This is a false analogy. The reason that you have a voice in the abortion debate is that the argument is being made that there is another person – the unborn fetus – being affected by a decision to abort, and as this other person lacks means to be involved in the decision, society must speak for them.
There is no analogous other person uninvolved in the decision in a SSM.
That’s not how I see it (and I may be wrong - this is MHO). I think men are involved in the abortion issue because it affects men as well as women - as far as I know, all of those fetuses still have fathers. Obviously, it’s ultimately the woman’s body and her choice to make, but usually she at least consults with the father beforehand. In the case of SSM, I personally fail to see how it affects society as a whole, or how it’s any religious/conservative jackass’s business if two same-sex people want to marry.
In this thread, MaxTheVool gave a perfect example of the problem with the “same-sex marriage would change the definition of the word, and everything would go topsy-turvy” argument:
Your church doesn’t have to welcome gay people; it has the right to preach that they are going to hell. It is your right to decide who can and cannot come into your home. Private clubs and bars can let in and keep out whomever they wish. I fail to see how any of that will be affected by gay marriage.
If your church preaches that gay people are going to hell, I doubt many same-sex couples would choose to attend. If a club, or a bar, or you, don’t want to let gay people in, you’ll have to come up with some way of telling who’s gay. I live in Massachusetts, where SSM marriage has been legal since 2004. No doubt I’ve run into married gay people in going about my little life, but I really don’t know, because there’s no way to tell who they are. Sometimes when I see two people of the same gender walking together, I get a “couple-y” vibe from them, but unless it’s that lesbian couple who were making out on the bus, I have no way of knowing what their relationship is.
This is the secret truth of legalized gay marriage: it doesn’t change a damned thing for the rest of us. Massachusetts is still heavily Catholic. No church in Massachusetts has changed their position on homosexuality or SSM or been forced to marry gay couples as a result legalized SSM. Straight people have not turned gay, or stopped getting married, or found that their relationships have changed or been devalued as a result of legalized SSM. The debate over SSM has effectively ended in Massachusetts, and I think it’s largely because nothing changed for the straight people who opposed it. In the nearly five years since SSM became legal, they’ve simply stopped caring about something that doesn’t affect them.
Smoking directly affects the health of people nearby. SSM doesn’t affect a single damned person outside of the married couple and their children (if any).
Because, it’s so totally different, that’s why! Gawd…
Why anyone could say a legal commitment between two people who love each other is in any way similar to a legal commitment between two people who love each other is totally beyond me.
South Africa, Sweden, Portugal
The fact it was not historically in place or recognized is irrelevant. The definition of marriage has been subject to change for thousands or years. There is no logical argument that it cannot be changed to include SSM.
But I am not that person. According to your argument, or the one you seem to be defending, it does not affect me personally, so I should bow out. And this assumes that one recognizes the fetus as a person, which not all people do.
Additionally, the argument you raise pertaining to abortion is just one argument. There are others. For instance, do we want to make a criminal of a young woman who is already in dire circumstances? Do we really want to arrest her? And to what degree will that actually stop her abortion?
I would also argue that society is an entity. If a military ship is blown up, should I care. Do I have the right to care, even if I will not personally be affected by it in the least. How about the issue of the burning of the flag. No skin off my nose either way of some idiot in Madison wants to burn the flag, right? So, I have no right to opine as to what the law should be? I have no right to help craft society in a way that I think is both beneficial to its furtherance? I say I absolutely have that right. Arguably, even the obligation to do so.
But this doesn’t really get us anywhere. You’re simply choosing to focus on the similarities and ignoring the differences. You can do that all you want. It doesn’t mean the differences are not there, just that you think them unimportant and choose to ignore them.
Fine. It has changed over the years. But it has always included at least one man and one woman. Can you point to any time in history that it has not?
Already did
Are you denying the recognition of same sex marriage in these countries is part of the worlds history?
That mischaracterizes and skirts his point. After all, if you’re not eating at those restaurants, you will not be affected by the smokers at the next table.
“That don’t make good sense. Shit boy, that don’t even make good nonsense.”
There had not been slavery for more than 100 years when Loving v. Virginia was ruled. Without using polygamy or a goat in your answer, what is the inherent difference between extending the definition of marriage to legalize interracial unions (the illegality of which had not only been widespread but ruled constitutional by the SCotUS under Pace v. Alabama) and extending it to include same sex unions?
That is a very recent phenomenon, which is actually part of the debate. That has nothing to do with what has constituted a marriage and what the word has stood for. The question that keeps coming up is: is any historical support for SSM being anything but a new idea. Is their any support for marriage standing for anything but a relationship that includes one man and (at least) one woman?
That different words mean different things.
And that the effort to conflate “marriage” with “same-sex marriage” is actually an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is, in other words, not up to me to show that SSM is different from the universally understood meaning of marriage; it is up to the proponents of SSM to show that it is.
This can be done in a number of ways, among them by showing that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to include SSM in that definition. This is going to be problematic.
Or we can simply sidestep the whole mess by getting “the states, or the people” to recognize a new right to SSM. That’s the best outcome; indeed, it’s the only Constitutional one. It is fully in accord with the plain sense of the Tenth Amendment, and it does no violence to the concept of limited government, which is a key concept in the writing of the Constitution and the thinking of the Founding Fathers.
We don’t necessarily know who invented the wheel, or whether it was invented several times in different places, or what exactly happened to the Aztecs either. How many countless social nuances are we still ignorant of when it comes to the history of our species?
It appears to have escaped your notice that you are, in fact, using the same word in both instances.
So you wish to maintain because something is newer in recent history it should not be allowed.
By your logic people should not be allowed to fly. Flight is a recent phenomenon. It goes against the ‘natural order’ for people to find themselves so high above sea level and historical it was not done therefor we should ban the practice.
Of course you have that right, though we may disagree.
Only a complete asshole— I’m talking base, vile, rotten, irredeemable piece of festering, worthless shit—would try to take a person’s rights away just because they disagreed with them.