You continue to use “custom” and “tradition” in oblique and, frankly, useless ways. Yes, we have collectively decided things. That what we do. As a nation, a society, and a culture. We decided to let the wimminfolk vote. We decided to let people with different skin colors get married. We decided to make the speed limit 55, then decided nah fuck that. We have decided that marriage is not available to 14 year olds. That in itself is sufficient to argue that polygamous marriage should not be available to 14 year olds.
What the fuck rhetorical point are you trying to make here? Are you seriously trying to argue that supporting marriage equality is morally, or even logically, comparable to eliminating age of consent laws?
Quite frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that gay couples have, on average, higher degrees of commitment–not because of any inherent superiority among same-sex couples, but because there are no shotgun weddings. It’s pretty hard for “accidents” to happen in a same-sex relationship.
Some states and federal departments already recognize gays as a protected class, and that’s the direction the government is moving in - I believe that was the gist of Kennedy’s ruling in Windsor.
I’ve actually thought about this in the past. Since the “Civil” part reflects the society’s interest in the union, why not convert everyone to a civil union and a further “marriage” is done by a religious institution?
Interestingly enough, a study done by theUK Met office showed that same sex unions had a 2.5% change to be dissolved after four years compared to 5.5% for different-sex couples. It also showed that male-male had a 1.6% separation rate and female-female had a 3.3% rate of separation.
Everybody’s had that thought. It won’t happen because people don’t want it to happen. It was hard enough to sell people on the idea that gay couples should be allowed to marry in peace and get the same benefits as straight couples - imagine what a bunch of culture warrior jerks would do with the message that people’s marriages were being downgraded in some way.
The question that I answered was not “What is the justification for supporting SSM?”
The question that I answered was, “Why should I support SSM?”
Since supporting SSM is the right thing to do, my answer was direct and to the point.
Now, if you want to wander off into the several hundredth discussion as to whether SSM is proper, you are welcome to do so, but the way you have attacked my direct response to a direct question is an extreme display of silliness and accusing me of posting a fallacy simply displays, once again, your tenuous grasp of logic.
The religious institution is matrimony. Marriage has always been a civil institution and most of the laws that we apply to marriage have their origins (with the usual historical meanderings) in Roman Civil Law.
People have already explained exactly what he’s doing wrong. Read the thread or don’t; I’m not writing a recap just for magellan01. And whatever Melchior thinks he is doing in this thread, he can do it without your “help.” You’ve had and lost this argument in spectacular fashion many, many times. Let someone else have a turn in the barrel for once.
Please. Didn’t you read the OP? Your answer is useless. Do you not think the OP is aware that there are some people who believe that supporting SSM is the right things to do. And another group of people who think that not allowing SSM is the right thing to do? You might as well have answered “Because.”
So, gay guys in a bar might have checked you out and that is the only possible way gay guys can ever be. The horror! You really are funny Melchior.
You are bringing no new arguments, just tired old ones that have been hashed out and demolished over and over. You are refusing to listen to any viewpoint except your own, based on experiences 40+ years ago. I applaud the people that are even engaging you in an attempt at serious discussion.
Of course, you are choosing to ignore the fact that my response was not to the OP, but to a later comment. My observation was no less useful than your hundredth repetition that “We need a law that sets them as separate but equal and as long as we claim that it is not separate but equal it won’t be except in fact.”
Laughable in the extreme. I have no doubt you believe so. You seem to think because I don’t convince you or the others of my position that I have “lost the debate”. I guess that I can then claim that everyone who as argued against me has “lost the debate”. The best anyone has been able to argue against my position is that allowing SSM would be an easier means to deliver to SSM couples the benefits and privileges they should be able to enjoy.
And in your cartoonish win-lose war, that means I “lost” the debate. Seems to me that your view of debate is a bit cartoonish and petulant. Perhaps you should try defending your positions without leaning either on your moderator status or the crowd that supports you. Comforting as you may find it.
You were answering the OP. Were you really of the mind that is thirst for a reasoned response had been quenched and he merely wanted to hear what you though was the “right thing to do”? :rolleyes:
But nice mischaracterization of my position thrown in there. Honest debate is getting scarcer and scarcer around here. And this from one of the more learned mods. Sad.
It’s not shedding light on the issue. It’s not a valuable alternative point of view. It’s not based on a sound and analysis of the facts. It doesn’t employ solid logic. It doesn’t even get better with age. What else should I call it other than losing an argument?
Weren’t both descended from our friendly Roman precursors? We stole ‘mariage’ from the French, which is their only word for the original “matrimony” sometime in the 1200/1300s. The French had marriage/matrimony civilly and religiously handled by the Catholic church for a very long time.
When the Saxons converted in the late 1300s, the Catholics brought “matrimonium Sanctus” to the language, becoming “Holy matrimony.” But “matrimonium” was the original Roman union that the Catholic church absorbed responsibility for during the prolonged fall of the Romans, which eventually became embellished by “Holy.”
The distinction between marriage and matrimony came from this source division, or so I thought. Am I mistaken?
