Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How is marriage itself harmed by SSM?

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific). And (contrary to some people), the Bible teaches against ssm. Therefore, ssm defies Biblical principles, the root of marriage.

Also, conservatives argue that the legalization of ssm leads to the breakdown of traditional marriage, which is considered to be the *right* form of marriage. For example, with the acceptance of ssm, it leads to a slippery slope of polygamy, etc.

As far as sufficient reason to disallow it, the issue comes down to two things. 1) ssm can't be considered marriage at all, since SCOTUS doesn't have the *authority* to change it, and 2) institutionalizing ssm undermines traditional marriage in a way that skews the interpretation of any type of marriage. So basically, conservatives argue that ssm can't be marriage, so it shouldn't be recognized as such.

Hope that does a little to clear things up. :/
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 5:07:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific). And (contrary to some people), the Bible teaches against ssm. Therefore, ssm defies Biblical principles, the root of marriage.

(1) The Bible is *not* the "root of marriage," as you claim. Religions *way* before it practiced marriage, e.g. Ancient Greece. There was no inherent opposition to SSM in Ancient Greece.

(2) It's a non-sequitur -- "marriage is Biblical in origin" doesn't entail "non-Biblical marriage harming the institution of marriage."


Also, conservatives argue that the legalization of ssm leads to the breakdown of traditional marriage, which is considered to be the *right* form of marriage. For example, with the acceptance of ssm, it leads to a slippery slope of polygamy, etc.

I'm asking for *justification* that "legalization of SSM leads to the breakdown of marriage." Nothing's going to happen negatively if SSM is illegal -- there are many happily married heterosexual, religious couples in the U.S., where SSM is legal. There's *no* empirical impact.


As far as sufficient reason to disallow it, the issue comes down to two things. 1) ssm can't be considered marriage at all, since SCOTUS doesn't have the *authority* to change it, and 2) institutionalizing ssm undermines traditional marriage in a way that skews the interpretation of any type of marriage. So basically, conservatives argue that ssm can't be marriage, so it shouldn't be recognized as such.

(1) I'm not asking about the US. I'm asking generically. I don't see how "SSM can't be considered 'marriage' " means it actually has a severe empirical impact.

(2) How does it "undermine traditional marriage?"


Hope that does a little to clear things up. :/

Are you for/against SSM?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 6:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Cole, until you can find a verse where same sex relationships are explicitly forbidden in the Bible, I will think you to be a damn fool.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:06:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 6:04:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I don't believe that is a valid reason, for just one particular issue, but I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV
" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind "

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Note that "effeminate" means homosexuals, as described in more modern translations (e.g. NKJV)

https://www.biblegateway.com...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:11:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I don't think SSM would be the largest cause of decline, rather it is a symptom of said decline. That decline will never reverse--no one is seriously contemplating repealing no-fault divorce--so prohibiting homosexuals from entering the institution, when the damage is already done and SSM is only a symptom, not a cause, of marriage decline, is unjust.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:11:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 3:06:09 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 6:04:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I don't believe that is a valid reason, for just one particular issue, but I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV
" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind "

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Note that "effeminate" means homosexuals, as described in more modern translations (e.g. NKJV)

https://www.biblegateway.com...

You really are a damn fool...lol. There are agendas in certain translations. The thought that homosexuality was never addressed in such a damning way was changed with this "translation".
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:12:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 5:07:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific). And (contrary to some people), the Bible teaches against ssm. Therefore, ssm defies Biblical principles, the root of marriage.

(1) The Bible is *not* the "root of marriage," as you claim. Religions *way* before it practiced marriage, e.g. Ancient Greece. There was no inherent opposition to SSM in Ancient Greece.

(2) It's a non-sequitur -- "marriage is Biblical in origin" doesn't entail "non-Biblical marriage harming the institution of marriage."


Also, conservatives argue that the legalization of ssm leads to the breakdown of traditional marriage, which is considered to be the *right* form of marriage. For example, with the acceptance of ssm, it leads to a slippery slope of polygamy, etc.

I'm asking for *justification* that "legalization of SSM leads to the breakdown of marriage." Nothing's going to happen negatively if SSM is illegal -- there are many happily married heterosexual, religious couples in the U.S., where SSM is legal. There's *no* empirical impact.


As far as sufficient reason to disallow it, the issue comes down to two things. 1) ssm can't be considered marriage at all, since SCOTUS doesn't have the *authority* to change it, and 2) institutionalizing ssm undermines traditional marriage in a way that skews the interpretation of any type of marriage. So basically, conservatives argue that ssm can't be marriage, so it shouldn't be recognized as such.

(1) I'm not asking about the US. I'm asking generically. I don't see how "SSM can't be considered 'marriage' " means it actually has a severe empirical impact.

(2) How does it "undermine traditional marriage?"


Hope that does a little to clear things up. :/

Are you for/against SSM?

I'm against. I guess it didn't. oh well.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
omanjoka
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay. Here is my hypothetical scenario that I think helps explain this, or something like that. Let's say I'm a man and I am married to a woman, with 2 daughters, and live next door to two men who are married and have 2 adopted sons.

How does my relationship between me and my wife loose its value when I still value it? How does knowing that my state recognizes ssm as equal to mine devalue mine? How does living next to a gay couple harm my marriage? Is it because my daughters might ask why two men are married? Because my answer would be "Because they love each other."
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:52:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 3:11:17 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I don't think SSM would be the largest cause of decline, rather it is a symptom of said decline. That decline will never reverse--no one is seriously contemplating repealing no-fault divorce--so prohibiting homosexuals from entering the institution, when the damage is already done and SSM is only a symptom, not a cause, of marriage decline, is unjust.

Yeah, this is what I think mostly makes the stance most untenable. That, and the fact that the whole 'nuclear family' thing is also a relatively new development; the extended family was much, much more important, traditionally, then it is today. The idea that just the mother, father, and children constitute a distinct, separate family unit would be utterly alien to families two hundred years ago.

Personally, I like the old model better; in my experience, families with a lot of trans-generational upwards mobility are very, very invested in extended family, legacy, and investment in the next generation. The abandonment of that model for a 'he who dies with the most toys wins', 'can't take it with you' mentality has done a lot more to sabotage the middle class over the last few decades than it is given credit for. As romantic as meteoric rags-to-riches stories are, most families claw their way out of poverty over several generations in a way which isn't very cinematographic.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?
Debate.org Moderator
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:59:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I don't think anyone really believes that, though...I mean, on short time period, Judaism (obviously) had marriage before Jesus, but even before that, the ancient Greeks and Indians practiced marriage. There's even evidence that people in the Indus Valley and Mesopotamian civilizations may have practiced marriage.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:59:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....

Ikr lol
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:00:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:52:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:11:17 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I don't think SSM would be the largest cause of decline, rather it is a symptom of said decline. That decline will never reverse--no one is seriously contemplating repealing no-fault divorce--so prohibiting homosexuals from entering the institution, when the damage is already done and SSM is only a symptom, not a cause, of marriage decline, is unjust.

Yeah, this is what I think mostly makes the stance most untenable. That, and the fact that the whole 'nuclear family' thing is also a relatively new development; the extended family was much, much more important, traditionally, then it is today. The idea that just the mother, father, and children constitute a distinct, separate family unit would be utterly alien to families two hundred years ago.


True

Personally, I like the old model better; in my experience, families with a lot of trans-generational upwards mobility are very, very invested in extended family, legacy, and investment in the next generation. The abandonment of that model for a 'he who dies with the most toys wins', 'can't take it with you' mentality has done a lot more to sabotage the middle class over the last few decades than it is given credit for. As romantic as meteoric rags-to-riches stories are, most families claw their way out of poverty over several generations in a way which isn't very cinematographic.

I would have to look at the research on this, but from what I have seen the "nuclear" set up is the "best" situation for child rearing.

But yet again, even if homosexuals (or anyone else) raise children "worse," it wouldn't mean much. Many minority groups that are trapped in poverty probably raise children "worse," but it would make literally zero sense to restrict their right to reproduce and raise children.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:03:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....

haha well there are several... But the easiest argument to make that Christians would have to cede to is that marriage existed in the OT (and therefore obviously Judaism), before Christianity existed.

...And then there are obviously the other ancient culture arguments... So I'm just confused by the post and hope I misunderstood it.
Debate.org Moderator
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:07:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:03:15 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....

haha well there are several... But the easiest argument to make that Christians would have to cede to is that marriage existed in the OT (and therefore obviously Judaism), before Christianity existed.

...And then there are obviously the other ancient culture arguments... So I'm just confused by the post and hope I misunderstood it.

I love how you only argue with people once in a blue moon, but every time you do it you basically completely obliterate the other person to the point where they have absolutely no ground left to stand on. You just hone in on the weakest part of an overall weak argument and undermine it with finesse.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:12:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:07:48 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/20/2015 6:03:15 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....

haha well there are several... But the easiest argument to make that Christians would have to cede to is that marriage existed in the OT (and therefore obviously Judaism), before Christianity existed.

...And then there are obviously the other ancient culture arguments... So I'm just confused by the post and hope I misunderstood it.

I love how you only argue with people once in a blue moon, but every time you do it you basically completely obliterate the other person to the point where they have absolutely no ground left to stand on. You just hone in on the weakest part of an overall weak argument and undermine it with finesse.

haha well thanks I think

But it wasn't really my intent to argue the broader points regarding SSM (at least not yet), I just saw that particular part of the post and it compelled me enough to reply to it.
Debate.org Moderator
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:26:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:00:46 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:11:17 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I don't think SSM would be the largest cause of decline, rather it is a symptom of said decline. That decline will never reverse--no one is seriously contemplating repealing no-fault divorce--so prohibiting homosexuals from entering the institution, when the damage is already done and SSM is only a symptom, not a cause, of marriage decline, is unjust.

Yeah, this is what I think mostly makes the stance most untenable. That, and the fact that the whole 'nuclear family' thing is also a relatively new development; the extended family was much, much more important, traditionally, then it is today. The idea that just the mother, father, and children constitute a distinct, separate family unit would be utterly alien to families two hundred years ago.


True

Personally, I like the old model better; in my experience, families with a lot of trans-generational upwards mobility are very, very invested in extended family, legacy, and investment in the next generation. The abandonment of that model for a 'he who dies with the most toys wins', 'can't take it with you' mentality has done a lot more to sabotage the middle class over the last few decades than it is given credit for. As romantic as meteoric rags-to-riches stories are, most families claw their way out of poverty over several generations in a way which isn't very cinematographic.


I would have to look at the research on this, but from what I have seen the "nuclear" set up is the "best" situation for child rearing.

But yet again, even if homosexuals (or anyone else) raise children "worse," it wouldn't mean much. Many minority groups that are trapped in poverty probably raise children "worse," but it would make literally zero sense to restrict their right to reproduce and raise children.

Yeah, the only standpoint from which gay marriage doesn't make sense is this traditional, almost defunct view of marriage as an extension of the bloodline, and of the bearing of children which are of one's blood as a sort of duty. That's why I think that gay marriage will have a huge battle ahead of it in countries like China where gay sex itself hasn't really been terribly stigmatized, historically: filial piety and 'duty to blood' are HUGE deals there, culturally. In my opinion, gay marriage, the nuclear family, and no-fault divorce are all accepted in the West because we abandoned the significance of blood relation outside of sentimentality and deconstructed those social institutions which reinforced it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:29:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:03:15 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....

haha well there are several... But the easiest argument to make that Christians would have to cede to is that marriage existed in the OT (and therefore obviously Judaism), before Christianity existed.

...And then there are obviously the other ancient culture arguments... So I'm just confused by the post and hope I misunderstood it.

Yeah.

On a semi-related note, because I feel like this will be the answer which you get, what are your thoughts on the word 'Judeo-Christian'? It's always seemed bizarrely appropriative to me; almost like a Muslim saying 'Christo-Islamic' whenever they wanted to take credit for some aspect of Christian civilization.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 6:53:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 6:29:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 6:03:15 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:58:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/20/2015 5:52:30 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/19/2015 5:01:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm well-equipped to explain the entire thing to you as of now, but I'll give you my personal thoughts.

The institution of marriage is a religiously-based ceremony (Christian to be specific).

In a thread about SSM in which there are a number of things I could reply to, I find myself rereading several posts and oddly this is what I keep getting hung up on....

The way you worded this portion of your response makes it seem as though (and correct me if I am misinterpreting this) it is Christianity that is somehow responsible for creating marriage.... (the only other way I interpret this is that marriage is somehow unique to Christianity, and I doubt you believe that)

Do you (and if you are aware, Christians in general) believe that Christianity is responsible for the existence of marriage?

I can see one glaring hole in that theory which you're probably staring dead in the face....

haha well there are several... But the easiest argument to make that Christians would have to cede to is that marriage existed in the OT (and therefore obviously Judaism), before Christianity existed.

...And then there are obviously the other ancient culture arguments... So I'm just confused by the post and hope I misunderstood it.

Yeah.

On a semi-related note, because I feel like this will be the answer which you get, what are your thoughts on the word 'Judeo-Christian'? It's always seemed bizarrely appropriative to me; almost like a Muslim saying 'Christo-Islamic' whenever they wanted to take credit for some aspect of Christian civilization.

This has gotten pretty off-topic, but yeah, I'd agree with the appropriative description of it. It's also problematic by the nature of the religious distinction. Christianity pretty much appropriates a lot of the major things (though there's kind of a paradox there, as I think the monotheistic element which should be the most crucial aspect has been mostly abandoned to some extent in many circumstances), but then, by the nature of its theology, essentially says none of this other stuff isn't relevant any longer - and that's fine from a strictly sociological perspective - but it creates very problematic theological conditions. Did god really threaten a culture to abide by XYZ and then say nah, just kidding, none of that stuff ever was really going to last very long?

I'm really skimming over some complex points, but it's all encompassing into an inherent contradiction in the idea of 'Judeo-Christian'.

So I think the word is appropriate to the extent that Christianity appropriates some Judaic cultural elements, though I do view problems with it too.

For all practical purposes though, it's fine as a distinction between those societies and "others". But again, that too has some problematic aspects too.

So I don't think there's really any way for me to answer this simply... Might need an entire thread of its own for me to really give a coherent answer.
Debate.org Moderator
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 9:02:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One argument I have:

P1: A fundamentally changeable instiution (FCI) is weaker than a fundamentally unchangeable institution (FUI)
P2: Permitting SSM changes the institution of marriage from an FUI to an FCI
C: Permitting SSM weakens marriage

P1 is the only controversial premise, P2 is common knowledge and C is a sound deduction.

But first, what exactly is a 'fundamentally changeable institution'? It is an institution that is able to be changed fundamentally - its very essence can be subject to change and modification, thereby allowing it to be changed by the whims of the powers that be. P1 is the assertion that this type of institution is weaker than an institution that is unable to be changed fundamentally.

We can determine P1's veracity by looking at human psychology. Institutions, by their nature, require their members to commit to that institution, thereby requiring a certain degree of trust between the institution and its members. For example, a political party requires committment from its activists and therefore there must be an element of trust between the activists and the party as an institution. Furthermore, a business contract is, by definition, something that requires both committment and trust between all involved parties.

However, both committing to something and trusting something requires that that something remain essentially unchanging and constant. If an institution is constantly changing (an FCI) then it is difficult, psychologically, for human beings to commit and trust it - since if we commit to an FCI then we have no real knowledge of what we are committing to; what one commits to on one day may be completely different on the next (simply because the institution is changing), which prompts us to question whether it is prudent to commit in the first place.

If commitment to and trust of an institution is dissuaded, as is the case if it is an FCI, then this undeniable contributes to its weakness.

For example, people are more likely to trust a political party that sticks to its fundamental principles and essence (an FUI), as opposed to a political party that is an FCI. One would be dissuaded in trusting the latter political party because they are uncertain on what it is they are really putting their trust in.

To continue my earlier example as well, if one knew that a contract they are about to sign is one that could fundamentally change at a later date, then he would have deep reservations about signing it. In fact, it would be prudent for him to refuse.

Therefore, an FCI is weaker than and FUI.

P2 is fairly obvious. Prior to SSM legalisation, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and had been defined in this way since time immemorial. If this definition is changed, then this constitutes a fundamental change - and demonstrates that marriage is an institution that is able to be fundamentally changed by the whim of the populace. Before, marriage was an FUI - its definition and fundamental essence had never been changed. But by changing the fundamental definition, marriage becomes an FCI.

Therefore, legalising SSM transforms marriage from an FUI to an FCI

The conclusion logically follows - legalising SSM weakens marriage.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 12:44:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 9:02:15 AM, Philocat wrote:
One argument I have:

P1: A fundamentally changeable instiution (FCI) is weaker than a fundamentally unchangeable institution (FUI)
P2: Permitting SSM changes the institution of marriage from an FUI to an FCI
C: Permitting SSM weakens marriage

P1 is the only controversial premise, P2 is common knowledge and C is a sound deduction.

On P1: I think if you did come actual research, you would find that an institution that is able to adapt to the environment is much more robust and able to endue than one that is rigid and unchanging. This is most certainly true in the business world. This is also true in evolution; species that cannot adapt die off.

On P2: You mean like the fact that at one time it was "common knowledge" that the earths was flat? Or the one time "common knowledge" that the earth was the center of the universe? Or the one time "common knowledge" that there had to exist some "ether" to allow for the propagation of light? How many examples of discredited "common knowledge" do you need to too invalidate P2?

Therefore, since both P1 and P2 are invalid premises, C is a false conclusion.

And that didn't even take 1/2 the space you need to make your facetious arguments.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 1:02:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 9:02:15 AM, Philocat wrote:
One argument I have:

P1: A fundamentally changeable instiution (FCI) is weaker than a fundamentally unchangeable institution (FUI)

Therefore, legalising SSM transforms marriage from an FUI to an FCI

The conclusion logically follows - legalising SSM weakens marriage.

I would argue that a perpetual 'FUI' is a complete impossibility, as institutions aren't actual concrete things, but abstract reflections of society. Since society is composed of individuals which die and are replaced by the next generation, institutions will at times change to reflect those evanescent bodies of humanity on which they are constructed. In cases where these reflective changes did not take place (ancient Rome, for one), we see stagnation and corruption over time, and eventual collapse. Flexibility, in cases like this, is actually a necessity; it's a textbook case of 'bend or break'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 1:23:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 12:44:01 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 9/20/2015 9:02:15 AM, Philocat wrote:
One argument I have:

P1: A fundamentally changeable instiution (FCI) is weaker than a fundamentally unchangeable institution (FUI)
P2: Permitting SSM changes the institution of marriage from an FUI to an FCI
C: Permitting SSM weakens marriage

P1 is the only controversial premise, P2 is common knowledge and C is a sound deduction.

On P1: I think if you did come actual research, you would find that an institution that is able to adapt to the environment is much more robust and able to endue than one that is rigid and unchanging. This is most certainly true in the business world. This is also true in evolution; species that cannot adapt die off.

The argument wasn't talking about things changing or remaining constant per se, it was talking about fundamental changes that change the very essence or definition of an institution. For example, if the Conservative party suddenly became liberal, this would be a fundamental change that would weaken the party, even if liberalism is a better ideology than conservativism.

In other words, adaptions and surface modifications do not necessarily weaken an institution, but fundamental changes do.


On P2: You mean like the fact that at one time it was "common knowledge" that the earths was flat? Or the one time "common knowledge" that the earth was the center of the universe? Or the one time "common knowledge" that there had to exist some "ether" to allow for the propagation of light? How many examples of discredited "common knowledge" do you need to too invalidate P2?

That's completely missing the point, to say that something is 'common knowledge' is just to say that it is obvious and uncontroversial - it is something that could easily be proven, but since it is commonly accepted, such an endeavor would be needless.


Therefore, since both P1 and P2 are invalid premises, C is a false conclusion.


And that didn't even take 1/2 the space you need to make your facetious arguments.

The amount of words you take to write a response has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of that response.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 1:59:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

The argument is that because there are inherent biological and indispensable social differences between men and women, the marriage of one man and one woman is sacred. Thus, any arrangement that is not a marriage between a man and a woman is necessarily inferiors. So, to call any living arrangement which is inferior a "marriage" is existentially harmful to marriage as a concept.

It's a stupid argument, but that's their argument in short and plain language.
Tsar of DDO
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:18:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 1:23:27 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 9/20/2015 12:44:01 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 9/20/2015 9:02:15 AM, Philocat wrote:
One argument I have:

P1: A fundamentally changeable instiution (FCI) is weaker than a fundamentally unchangeable institution (FUI)
P2: Permitting SSM changes the institution of marriage from an FUI to an FCI
C: Permitting SSM weakens marriage

P1 is the only controversial premise, P2 is common knowledge and C is a sound deduction.

On P1: I think if you did come actual research, you would find that an institution that is able to adapt to the environment is much more robust and able to endue than one that is rigid and unchanging. This is most certainly true in the business world. This is also true in evolution; species that cannot adapt die off.

The argument wasn't talking about things changing or remaining constant per se, it was talking about fundamental changes that change the very essence or definition of an institution. For example, if the Conservative party suddenly became liberal, this would be a fundamental change that would weaken the party, even if liberalism is a better ideology than conservativism.

The you need to irrefutable define what is the "very essence". From all the arguments I have heard; in forums, in politics, in court cases, there seems to be considerable disagreement on that point alone.


In other words, adaptions and surface modifications do not necessarily weaken an institution, but fundamental changes do.


On P2: You mean like the fact that at one time it was "common knowledge" that the earths was flat? Or the one time "common knowledge" that the earth was the center of the universe? Or the one time "common knowledge" that there had to exist some "ether" to allow for the propagation of light? How many examples of discredited "common knowledge" do you need to too invalidate P2?

That's completely missing the point, to say that something is 'common knowledge' is just to say that it is obvious and uncontroversial - it is something that could easily be proven, but since it is commonly accepted, such an endeavor would be needless.

If it is so easy to prove, than you should have no difficulty proving it. Just brushing aside logic isn't proof. I await your proof.



Therefore, since both P1 and P2 are invalid premises, C is a false conclusion.


And that didn't even take 1/2 the space you need to make your facetious arguments.

The amount of words you take to write a response has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of that response.

As well evidenced by your responses.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:33:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 1:59:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2015 4:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I've heard Conservatives claim this, and argue it's a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. I'd like to see someone justify (1) marriage is "harmed" by the presence of same-sex marriage, and (2) that's a sufficient reason to make it illegal.

The argument is that because there are inherent biological and indispensable social differences between men and women, the marriage of one man and one woman is sacred. Thus, any arrangement that is not a marriage between a man and a woman is necessarily inferiors. So, to call any living arrangement which is inferior a "marriage" is existentially harmful to marriage as a concept.

It's a stupid argument, but that's their argument in short and plain language.

That argument is such nonsense.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:39:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 9:02:15 AM, Philocat wrote:
One argument I have:

P1: A fundamentally changeable instiution (FCI) is weaker than a fundamentally unchangeable institution (FUI)
P2: Permitting SSM changes the institution of marriage from an FUI to an FCI
C: Permitting SSM weakens marriage

You're assuming marriage is -- by default -- an FUI, which has to be established. Why do you hold that marriage is "fundamentally unchangeable?" And even if so, I just deny P2, because permitting SSM doesn't "change" anything, simply since homosexuality is natural. Since marriage is wired towards varying forms of sexuality, any existent form of sexuality should be marriage.


P1 is the only controversial premise, P2 is common knowledge and C is a sound deduction.

But first, what exactly is a 'fundamentally changeable institution'? It is an institution that is able to be changed fundamentally - its very essence can be subject to change and modification, thereby allowing it to be changed by the whims of the powers that be. P1 is the assertion that this type of institution is weaker than an institution that is unable to be changed fundamentally.

We can determine P1's veracity by looking at human psychology. Institutions, by their nature, require their members to commit to that institution, thereby requiring a certain degree of trust between the institution and its members. For example, a political party requires committment from its activists and therefore there must be an element of trust between the activists and the party as an institution. Furthermore, a business contract is, by definition, something that requires both committment and trust between all involved parties.

Define what you mean by "commitment."


However, both committing to something and trusting something requires that that something remain essentially unchanging and constant. If an institution is constantly changing (an FCI) then it is difficult, psychologically, for human beings to commit and trust it - since if we commit to an FCI then we have no real knowledge of what we are committing to; what one commits to on one day may be completely different on the next (simply because the institution is changing), which prompts us to question whether it is prudent to commit in the first place.

You're confusing "marriage as a whole" with individual marriages. If marriages as a whole are changed, in no way does it change the commitment with individual marriages, in the style of permitting SSM. If SSM is permitted, opposite-sex couples in marriage do not face *any* impact whatsoever.


If commitment to and trust of an institution is dissuaded, as is the case if it is an FCI, then this undeniable contributes to its weakness.

For example, people are more likely to trust a political party that sticks to its fundamental principles and essence (an FUI), as opposed to a political party that is an FCI. One would be dissuaded in trusting the latter political party because they are uncertain on what it is they are really putting their trust in.

To continue my earlier example as well, if one knew that a contract they are about to sign is one that could fundamentally change at a later date, then he would have deep reservations about signing it. In fact, it would be prudent for him to refuse.

Therefore, an FCI is weaker than and FUI.

P2 is fairly obvious. Prior to SSM legalisation, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and had been defined in this way since time immemorial. If this definition is changed, then this constitutes a fundamental change - and demonstrates that marriage is an institution that is able to be fundamentally changed by the whim of the populace. Before, marriage was an FUI - its definition and fundamental essence had never been changed. But by changing the fundamental definition, marriage becomes an FCI.

Therefore, legalising SSM transforms marriage from an FUI to an FCI

The conclusion logically follows - legalising SSM weakens marriage.

I need an *empirical,* situation-specific defense of P2. I need some evidence showing that opposite-sex marriage is actually "damaged" by legalizing SSM. I want to know *what* the legalization of SSM changed with OSM. What do you mean by "weakening" marriage? What actually happens to marriages if the institution is weakened?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass