[ivyleaguebrat]

My only argument was in opposition of the assumption that society having done something for X number of years is any indication that that thing is the right thing to do, except for my implication that the determination should be made from a position of knowledge.

I’m opening to challenging any proscription if the advocates of that proscription rely only on tradition, and not the consequences of abandoning the proscription.

Plenty of opponents to gay marriage cite the potential consequences of gay marriage. I think that is perfectly rational, and a compelling line of argument if there is evidence to support the probability of those consequences occuring.

However, I do not that that just because society has done something for X (large) number of years, that that is, ipso facto, evidence that doing the opposite will make our society die.

[ivyleaguebrat]

However, I do not that that just because...

I do not *think* that just because....

[isrul]

Okay. But I think if a tiny minority of people want to change a universal concept of every civilization, the burden is upon them to make a valid case as to why this would be better than the current paradigm. And gain universal acceptance rather than trying to impose their particular peculiarity.