Evidently you've never heard of people being married by justices of the peace and seaship captains. Not to mention that civil unions are simply marriages in all but name.
The state shouldn’t be in the business of declaring things sacred, should it? Wouldn’t you prefer that be left to religious institutions?
You're not leaving them up to religious institutions if you replace marriages with civil unions which have the same function as marriages.
You seem to be suggesting there’s only one definition of civil marriage. At the moment, there are many, and the definitions vary by state. Same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries, and now two U.S. states. It doesn’t matter what you or I propose, because “same-sex pairings” already qualify as marriages in some parts of the country. That ship has sailed.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who lectured us about Sharia law earlier. Following your reasoning, since Sharia law is already practiced in some jurisdictions, we may as well import it here. After all, that ship has sailed.
The first part of the first paragraph is just nonsense. Yours was a very funny circular argument. So much that I thought you must be joking. Apparently you weren’t, but you still get credit for making me laugh.
Well, you might want to save some of that laughter for yourself since you made the fatal error of accusing a debate rival of both circular reasoning and a slippery slope argument in the same post. So let's take a look at this logically (I'm doing this for the benefit of any lurkers, because I don't think you'll get it):
I said people of the same sex can't marry because marriage is defined as being the bonding of people of the opposite sex. You said that was a circular argument since the definition of marriage can be changed. You then said that it's a "slippery slope" erroneous argument to suggest that we might one day have human-animal "marriage" because such pairings don't fit the definition of marriage. Why not? Well, uh, well, you know, because marriage is between two people, not a person and an animal, and because marriage requires both parties to consent. But if that's the case, then why can't the definition of marriage be changed to include animals and non-consensual members? Are you suggesting that the definition of marriage can't be changed? If so, according to you, that's a circular argument.
You see, when you start defining things in ways that are contradictory to legitimate meaning, you open yourself up to a steady stream of Big Brotherish redefinitions. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Marriage is whatever the state says it is as of this morning.
I see you’re very keen on making a case for kangaroo marriage. Do you know what a “slippery slope fallacy” is? You just constructed an absolutely perfect example, so read about it, and pat yourself on the back.
I'm very well aware of what a slippery slope fallacy is. I should be since I was here at FR when the Lawrence sodomy ruling was handed down. I was accused by people like yourself of employing a slippery slope argument when I said it would lead to same-sex "marriage". Damn, it's a good thing I was wrong, huh?
You’ve missed the point (again). We have civil marriage now, yes. I have said, about forty times, that I think one solution to this problem would be to stop using the word “marriage” to describe civil unions, and let religion have dominion over that word, since it is meaningful to many religious people. That way, everyone gets a civil union, and the “gay marriage debate” is over. People can still be married in the church of their choice, as well as, or instead of getting a civil union, but the government wouldn’t be involved in labeling anything a “marriage.” Churches would make their own rules about who could and couldn’t get “married” in their church.
When did I lecture anyone about Sharia law? I told someone who was yearning for it that he or she wouldn’t have a problem finding it. Please don’t make things up. It’s time-consuming for both of us. Your “reasoning” didn’t follow mine at all. You said same-sex pairings could not be called “marriage,” I said it’s already happened in places, they are already called marriages, so your statement is simply wrong. Do you understand now?
Believe it or not, people can squeeze circular logic and a a slippery slope fallacy into the same post. I’ve seen it done. They might even throw in a straw man and a red herring. The pit is bottomless.
Let me keep this a simple as possible for ya. If some group of people wanted to change laws so they could marry kangroos (who are these people, are they your friends?), then they’d have a long, hard slog ahead of them. To suggest kangaroo marriage is nipping at the heels of gay marriage is so flatly ridiculous, it is the ultimate slippery slope fallacy. In fact, that very example is used pretty often to illustrate the slippery slope fallacy (not necessarily using kangaroos, that’s your special animal). AND, people used EXACTLY the same argument against interracial marriage. That was pretty silly and offensive in retrospect, no? So is your comparison. I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m really, truly sorry.
Did you READ your own hilarious circular argument? Please do. Just re-read it. I really don’t have the energy to look it up. It went a little something like this — same sex couples can’t get married, because they can’t get married, because they’re of the same sex. Really, it was priceless. Just enjoy it. Own it.
Civil marriage is not a static institution. It is, in fact, whatever the government says it is, for better or worse, and that varies and changes over time. I think you already understand this, and you’re just being ornery now.