it is indeed, and therefore free to be deconstructed, reconstructed and altered at will. What would pass for marriage a thousand years ago would be frowned upon today.
ehhhhhhh, not really. We can make it what we like.
Please see post 18. I believe the poster made a clear and specific argument that the definition of marriage should be allowed to change because change is the natural flow, based on the changes of other traditions over time.
Here’s the relevant couple of sentences:
I’m sure you could find a dishonest and/or sloppily conducted study that makes such a claim. Many people before you have. I am absolutely certain that you could not find a scientifically valid study that makes any such claim. Many people before you have tried and failed. What do you think the last several years of court cases have been about?
Your apology shouldn’t be for not having the studies, your apology should be for making this claim in the first place, given your complete lack of evidence for it.
I’m going to offer some advice, and please understand it’s meant to be helpful: you sound like someone interested in the subject but who is speaking before she educates herself. There is no shortage of information available online about these issues. You’d serve yourself well by spending a lot more time reading before you continue offering opinions, opinions based on no evidence whatsoever.
Like that’s not, almost*, the only thing opposition to SSM has argued that hasn’t been refuted.
- Almost, because I’m still open to the possibility . . . even though I’ve never seen one in the wild.
CMC fnord!
“Should be allowed to change” is absolutely different from “should change.” Do you see the difference?
My daughter should be allowed to marry a woman when she becomes an adult. I am NOT saying my daughter should marry a woman when she becomes an adult.
There is not litmus test today to ensure marriages provide the optimal child rearing environment. There is not a legal basis to require SSM pass such a test in order to be legal.
Plus, you’re arguing that SSM marriage is the equivalent of a woman marrying an inanimate object?
Uh, okay. And how does that justify limiting two women to getting a “civil union” instead of getting a “marriage” that grants the same benefits and drawbacks and ramifications as a “civil union”? I don’t follow you, here.
My wife does it all the time. Curses like a sailor.
But that’s not the point. A woman can’t marry a washing machine, and neither can a man. We don’t forbid the woman down the street from marrying a washing machine because she’s black; we’d still forbid it if she were white. You want to discriminate, granting some folks the right to do what you ban others from? You defend that.
You’re being a little circumspect about this. It’s difficult to examine arguments when the ones offered are “Perhaps there are some arguments out there.”
I don’t know that anyone is arguing for change purely for the sake of change. **IVT’**s point wasn’t that “things have changed, therefore things should change”. It was “things have changed, therefore we should not be unwilling to judge whether change is a good idea elsewhere, too”.
The problem with tradition is that something occurs for a reason, and gradually over time the manner of its existence becomes “traditional” and gains a value in and of itself, with, this being the important part, not necessarily any relation to the original reason for why it exists.
What is the value of tradition? Stripped of all other purpose or meaning, positive or negative, how much does “this is the way it’s always been!” actually have weight? If something is worth keeping, we should be able to point to where the value comes from. And, since the intention is not to keep changing for the sake of changing - is there greater value from tradition that could not be made up for with a “new” tradition? Accept gay marriage, and 50 years hence that’ll be traditional.
Yes, and I stand by that argument. SSM should be allowed to change barring any compelling reason not to, because societies have evolved on many fronts thought out history, and it’s a natural occurrence. To say that it’s acceptable for society to change on all these other fronts, but this is one is super-special because reasons, doesn’t fly with me.
Good arguments by everyone, I appreciate the debate and learned a lot.
I have to get going now, so this is a good time to mention that I’m not against same-sex marriage. Before the start of this thread I leaned slightly in favor, no strong preference either way.
So you’ve conceded and are agreeing with the proponents of SSM, or did you misspeak?
My God man, how much clearer can I get than what you quoted? You win! 
It has, in fact, been studied. What’s generally been found is that children of same-sex couples do slightly better than children of opposite sex couples. But that’s besides the point, because gay couples will be raising children whether or not gay marriage is legal.
Inanimate objects can’t own property. Nor can they give legal or medical consent. None of the benefits of marriage can be exercised by inanimate objects. So if some crazy lady wants a marriage license with her name and Westinghouse on it, who cares? The paper is legally meaningless, because one party is physically incapable of enjoying any of the rights associated with marriage.
Marriage as a religious institution has strict parameters for legitimacy. As a civil institution you only have to show ID, swear you’re not first cousins or already married, and pay a filling fee.
If you show up to your own religious wedding without bringing a marriage license, do you actually get married? If you got married in a religious ceremony, do you get divorced in a religious proceeding? If you fake your way through a religious marriage ceremony to please your grandmother and never set foot in a church again can they nullify your marriage as a fraudulent sham?
And as far as gay marriage “watering down” existing marriages - really? My marriage has exactly two people in it. We decide what it means to us and what we want and need and contribute to it. The “concentration” of our marriage is our own responsibility and completely independent of outside forces.
Among the criteria that matter in a civil marriage, are the connotations inherent in the following letters: m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e. Language matters and we deserve no bargain basement generic label. I have never dreamed of being civil unionized and I never wanted a civil union partner. I want to be married to my husband, my spouse.
It’s pretty much the same argument against ‘separate but equal’ seats on buses, or ‘separate but equal’ drinking fountains.
Why does any of this matter? We all agree that we are throwing the traditional meaning of the word “marriage” out the window, so why do your objections stand in the way of “progress”?
Plus, as we learned from Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right. Why would you deny this woman legal recognition of her marriage to the washing machine? What constitutional basis do you have for denying cleanlosexuals their choice of happiness?
You are denying cleanlosexuals equal protection under the law.
We all agree to nothing of the sort. Adorable misrepresentation, though.
Another nice try. Do you actually think there’s some sort of “gotcha” here?
No we don’t.
I’m unaware of any outcry from (or the existence of) cleanlosexuals. If they exist, they can make their own argument for marriage with appliances. Right now, I’ve heard from many, many gay couples who have convinced me that, without marriage equality, they are being denied their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and are being treated differently by the law.
We can address any arguments from the myriad of hypothetical inanimate-object-lovers once they actually (assuming they exist) make an argument.
Nitpick: in most states, I believe, first cousins are eligible for marriage. When we applied for our marriage license, We were required to state that my fiancée and I were not related any more closely than first cousins, but we could be first cousins and still marry.
So far as I can tell, first cousin marriage is not uncommon in many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, many Middle Eastern countries, Pakistan, and India.