Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
And it has nothing to do with Gods approval, it would be rather arrogant for me to presume to speak on His behalf. I'm talking of my belief. I see the traditional family as the key building block of society, and it should be sacred (even if it isn't).
You think my "traditional" label is silly/outdated/hateful, and that's your prerogative.
|
The "tradition" argument is adopted by more people than some might think - including many who are for gay marriage.
I've had numerous discussions over the years where I've argued that if you reject the "tradition" argument, what's to stop polygamous relationships from being recognized (particularly in circumstances where polygamy is endorsed by a religion, and thus should theoretically enjoy Constitutional protection)?
When I've made this argument in the past, some people have assumed it's just conservative rhetoric, and that I'm equating gay marriage with polygamous marriages just to instil fear of a "slippery slope" when in fact the two concepts are clearly not the same. Of course, I wasn't trying to be rhetorical: I actually don't care if polygamous groups get married, and I don't see why they can't. The only real reason (besides religious ones) to keep marriage between a man and a woman is "tradition." Once you throw that out, and allow marriage to be between 2 people, why can't it be between 3 people? Is it because marriage is "traditionally" only between 2 people?
The day will come when 3 people in a triangle of mutual love and respect, and possibly bound by a common religion which recognizes their relationship, take their case for marriage before the courts. I don't know how they could lose frankly. Unless it was on the basis of "tradition."