I KNEW it! They’re EVERYWHERE!
And they think you’re kinda cute, too. 
It doesn’t have to. It’s a custom. Customs have some force. Most laws are ultimately based on custom and nothing else. Our law is based on British law and Roman law. You must understand what I mean by ‘custom’ here is not the same thing as throwing rice at a wedding ceremony.
No, his argument is perfectly right. It’s just pointless.
I don’t think the defense in Brown argued that racial segregation was part of the definition of public education.
Yes - which is a little different from saying marriage laws discriminate. Of course they do - all laws discriminate in some way. You have to show that the discrimination is somehow unfair.
He didn’t say that either.
It ought to though, dont’ you think? We should change laws that are unfair.
We may not be OBLIGATED to, but we should.
There was a time, not very long ago, when marriage laws did not discriminate on the basis of race, either. Within other restrictions that are not in question and still apply, a white person was free to marry any other white person, and a black person was free to marry any other black person.
So what do you think could have been the problem with that?
You’re one too, aren’t you?
I’ll never got to the gym again! They’re all staring at me!
No, I’m straight but not narrow, as the stickers say.
Those were hardly widespread laws and are quite different, as you know. (But it would be nice to have some blondes for the next generation, you know!)
I have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality, but marriage is something else altogether.
What about bigamy? What about marrying your sister? your niece? your dog?
No, I don’t know. In what way are they quite different? Please explain.
Uh huh.
edit:
Wha? Mechior, is there something you want to get off your chest?
I’m not sure you understand what a “straw man” argument is - it doesn’t really make sense applied to this argument. A straw man is where you invent an argument for your opponent, and then argue against that, instead of what he’s actually said. “Gay marriage should be legal, because it creates a severe and unnecessary hardship on gay people,” cannot be a straw man argument, because it does not reference anyone else’s position.
What about it?
And what many of us object to is placing “custom” above the health, happiness, and material wealth of an inoffensive minority. What value is the “custom” of exclusively heterosexual marriage? How is this value compromised by allowing gay people to wed?
This is trivially easy to disprove, by the simple expedient of pointing out that we freely grant marriage licenses to couple who are unable or incapable of reproducing. If a man with a vasectomy can marry a woman with a hysterectomy, why shouldn’t two men be allowed to marry? Neither couple is any more likely than the other to produce biological offspring.
What does that have to do with gay marriage? If you want to talk about those things, start another thread.
Black men and Asian men and white men are all men and not women.
I do not find this statement convincing.
There are also people that have no problem with black people, but (for them) interracial marriage is something else altogether. Thankfully, the law doesn’t pay attention to old bigots like that. The law should also ignore bigotry against homosexual couples.
I said ‘ultimately based on’. In the past, couples were engaged first, and when a child was conceived they could marry. Offspring (especially males) were important, particularly after the Black Death reduced the population of Europe by roughly half. King Henry VIII went through several wives, you may recall, because he wanted a son.
Much like when religious people wonder how it is that atheists can not believe in a god and simultaneously not be thieving murdering rapists, I get uncomfortable and nervous when anti-marriage equalists start talking about bestiality. Why is that where they jump to?
You couldn’t be more wrong. A law that discriminates (especially against a protected class) is not going to survive a legal challenge if customs are the only basis for the law. Perhaps you should read up on concepts like strict scrutiny - concepts that actually determine how courts evaluate cases like this.
Customs usually do not have the force of law.
Please explain the customs that support speed limits, local zoning laws, income tax rates…
Yes, it’s technically correct and has zero relevance to the subject, which is obvious to everyone who has ever used the argument. That’s why it’s bullshit.
:rolleyes: I already said this in the exact same post you are quoting.
Some Santorum, perhaps.