No, the word ‘gender’ is wrong. Men and women are of different sexes, not genders. You’re using the wrong word. ‘Gender’ is a term used in grammar and linguistics (der Mann, masculie, das Haus, neuter, die Quelle, feminine).
Laws forbidding multiple simultaneous spouses are bigamy laws. I used the wrong word. I understand the difference.
Once again, Melchior rewrites the dictionary at random.
Except, you’re not. You haven’t provided a single possible negative outcome of allowing SSM. You’ve thrown out a couple ludicrous scenarios, but haven’t provided any logical connection between them and SSM. There are a number of strong argument for why SSM is a good idea. Not all of these arguments apply to bestiality or incest, and both bestiality and incest have strong arguments against them that do not apply to SSM.
Again, this is incorrect. Bigamy is fraud. It’s entering into two contracts, both of which stipulate that you will not enter into any similar contracts with other people. Laws against bigamy stem from property rights, not custom - a bigamist is effectively stealing from both spouses by offering them both the same portion of his assets.
For marriage you just need one male and one female. That’s it. The coming together of man and woman is race/skin color agnostic.
The law does not require love in a marriage.
For most of human history, and still in many cultures today, love does not enter into it.
What dictionary are you getting this stuff? The word “gender” has multiple definitions, and in every dictionary I’ve looked at online in the last five minutes, one of the definitions is “the state of being male or female”, or something equivalent.
Words don’t just mean what you want them to mean.
Marriage should also be (and is for many people) sex/gender agnostic.
They are no more ‘ludicrous’ than same-sex marriage. Who was talking about bestiality? You might marry an animal and remain celibate. There are couples who marry and remain celibate.
Neither does it require procreation, so why should it be restricted only to opposite sex couples?
So what? Why should that determine marriage laws right now, in this country?
Gotta love people like Melchior. All the highlights are being hit that have been argued out here and elsewhere at length…slippery slope, custom, ‘That’s what the word means!’, etc.
Dictionaries have picked up this ignorant usage. They record erroneous usage.
Here’s a different version: you need two adults who want to get married. The race consideration used to be very important, now it isn’t. The gender consideration used to be important, and now that’s changing. See how this works?
Dictionaries record how words are used - and the meaning of a word changes with its usage. That’s why it’s pointless and misinformed and pompous to say “this word means this, end of argument!” Your third grade teacher is not the ultimate authority on the subject.
Because it’s our custom. Marriage is a custom and should be observed in the customary way.
It’s not ‘gender’, but ‘sex’. The two cases are not the same. False analogy.
To say ‘it’s changing’ when the ‘changing’ is merely the rulings of some demented judges is ludicrous. We as a culture, as a society, collectively establish customs, not some demented judge alone.
So, are you saying that if a gay couple live in an area where SSM is not recognized, that they can’t—don’t—partake in those values? I think we both know that to be patently untrue.
To your larger point, as I’ve pointed out before, you can have SS couples partake of the same benefits and privileges while reserving marriage for 1 man + 1 woman.
Get and read a dictionary. When you’re done with that, read up on strict scrutiny. Your argument about customs does not work in our legal system.
There’s nothing ludicrous at all about same sex marriage. Homosexuals are driven largely by the same needs and desires as straight people, including the desire to long term pair-bond. Much of society is set up around this idea - inheritance laws, hospital visitation, power of attorney, and more are all set up to default to the spouse. By denying homosexuals the marriage, you are creating large (often insurmountable) walls between gay couples and the ability to exercise those rights.
By contrast, an animal cannot own property, cannot make legal decisions, and probably shouldn’t be in a hospital for sanitary reasons. All of the legal rights and responsibilities that accrue to someone in a marriage are literally impossible to grant to an animal, much less an inanimate object. It’s a ridiculous comparison.
To say nothing of insulting, but I’m pretty sure you already knew that part.
It used to be our custom that it was okay to own other people. We changed that.
It used to be our custom that women couldn’t vote. We changed that.
It used to be our custom that black people and white people couldn’t marry each other. We changed that.
Why should we not change marriage customs to allow gay couples to wed?
Maybe in your backwater. There are places in this world that require only two adults for a marriage.
Nope. Not even close to being an accurate statement.