Accepting a conclusion as truth because “that’s the way it has always been done” is always fallacious, yes. That’s why I phrased my response in the way that I did. I’m not familiar with any pro-same-sex marriage arguments that are based on the notion that it should be accepted exclusively because it’s new.
The appeal to traditional man-woman marriage is not necessarily fallacious. It is not actually being used as an exclusive argument in this long standing debate. Importantly, however, it is the only configuration that produces the next generation of taxpaying citizens. So why incentivize same sex pairing that is fruitless by nature and call it marriage? Marriage, a pre-legal pre-ecclesiastical institution, involves more than emotion, more than bonding of two adults. Close friends, siblings, intergenerational family members with common objectives can stay together long term, or a life time, leave each other their earthly possessions, put into legally binding contracts the so called rights that same sex sexual partners claim sans the sex part. As far as the alleged federal benefits and qualification for immigration to the country by the non-U.S. partner as afforded by a legal marriage, there must be a way for governments to extend such benefits given a new set of criteria without redefining marriage. After all, the government appears to to be able to work around whatever whenever a decision is reached to bestow benefits to citizens via fiats by judicial ruling, legislation and executive decree. How is it for example that undocumented immigrants have been allowed to obtain driver licenses and enjoy employment rights when before they were disallowed? All it takes is someone or some agency in the government to decide so, make it official, or force it through legalization. Never mind if it is a reversal of a previous rule or it does not make sense.
The counter fallacy to the appeal to tradition, which is the appeal to novelty (of same sex “marriage”), is brought up by me in a similar fashion, not because SS"M" is a concept to be accepted exclusively because it’s new. Same sex “marriage” is a new social and legal experiment in the U.S. The gay rights movement started by activists wanting gays just to be left alone to do their private thing. They achieved a string of successes in securing protections but then made a grab for same sex “marriage” in the end of their struggle for so called equality. Never mind that homosexual relations can never be equal to heterosexual relations, can never be marital by virtue of biology regardless of effected legalization. Same sex couples will not hear this reasoning and there are those who are chomping at the bit to get “married.” Why? To feel good, achieve complete victory, at the expense of religious liberties by others, most of all Catholics who live their faith. What should responsible political leadership do in light of a radical social experiment that is SS"M"? Before re-ordering society, how about holding off and conducting really agenda-free, bias-free, long term studies utilizing sufficient, random sampling and sound methodology, which might incidentally bring back some respect to the mental health profession? In short, there is wisdom in looking first before we leap, rather than taking an oh-well, society-be-damned attitude, as there must be a fix for any and all resulting social ills from a mistake. What good would stepping on the brakes do after a crash?
gracepoole, I don’t expect you could be persuaded since you appear to serve without fail as an advocate for SS"M" in your record of posts, regardless that such a position is not consistent with your stated faith. This posting is more for the readers of this thread.
,
You’re judging a book by it’s cover. In this case, the word and/or concept of marriage. If something in one case applies to another case, then why is that ineptitude? Certain aspects of a given case can and often do relate to other issues before a given court.
) so I’ve only included the link.
I didn’t see this post until after I wrote my last one on the issue we were discussing. Sorry about that!
Few of the cases on the list back up the claim previously made that the opinion referenced most of the previous marriage cases. It was nothing more than a list of cases lifted from the opinion, without understanding why they were there or what they were referencing. Just because a case is sited in a marriage opinion does not make it a marriage case or relevant to the discussion.