Whoop whoop text wall.
That argument is most often used to highlight the hypocrisy in supporters of "non-traditional" marriage. In other words, ratifying gay marriage as traditional because, like you've indicated, you do have a problem with any other type of marriage.
I agree that argument is used often, but I also stipulated that it was a very poor argument (as I said before it is only used for shock value as a slippery slope). "Gay marriage? What? Next thing you know there will be polygamy and marrying cows! Where will it end?" This is a fairly typical style of argument conservative social issues. "Legalize pot? Kids will be doing crack cocaine soon!", etc.
Therefore I do not really see it as hypocrisy. Its jumping a conclusion. It is like saying "You want to reduce taxes? I guess you hate fire departments and public roads! Hypocrite!". Not a very legit way to argue, which is why I think it is a very poor citation against proponents of gay marriage, despite its common usage.
Basically it really isn't hypocritical.
What is the purpose behind ratifying same sex marriage? The arguments are all over the board. Most often what we hear is that people should be able to love whoever we want and that marriage is all about love. If that is true, what are marriage limiting laws for at all?
I've never thought the arguments were all over the board. They have always seemed pretty clear: equal protection, equal protection, equal protection. You simply cannot put in a legal system that isn't fair and nondiscriminatory. Whether it is marriage or schools or what have you. Just by claiming the purpose and arguments are "all over the board" doesn't actually make it so.
Why do we need more evidence supporting other forms of non-traditional marriage?
Because if you are going to create a system of legal bindings (or an extension thereof) designed for economic benefit, I really fucking hope it isn't whimsical and at least some thought was put into it. If it can be shown that other forms of marriage have additional economic benefits, increase public happiness, increase public health (through mental happiness, which also decreases healthcare costs), then go right ahead. I am open to new ideas and arguments, I just hope that they have some substance when brought to the table.
Again, I ask, what is the purpose of marriage as a legal construct?
For all sorts of legal shit, some of which dragonfliet pointed out. Tends to have a nice economic benefits too. Acts as an incentive to get people who already love each other to legally pool their money together which allows them to buy houses, cars, and shit that they probably would not have been able to on their own. Makes acquiring loans and other legal shit easier. Basically makes the money flow. Since our primary form of economic policy in the US is capitalism, creating situation for people to be more active consumers is healthy for the economy.
Basically it is such a large part of many peoples lives that there became an incentive to make it a formal legal contract to enable economic benefits. I am sure a lot of this stuff can be done without marriage, but I cannot blame whoever wrote the legislation way back when for simply eye-ing an already accepted institution to take advantage of for the betterment of all. Funny though how dropping marriage from the legal system only becomes an argument once
gays are allowed to participate. They just had to stick there gay agenda into it, didn't they? Guess we should scrap the whole idea. (Seriously stop being such sore loosers!)
However, this just sounds like "I'm okay with discrimination as long as it's popular" based on the other arguments presented. I'm not trying to discredit gay marriage, I'm asking if you sincerely support gay marriage how can you not support these other types of non-traditional marriage? Why is gay marriage an exception for you?
"I'm okay with discrimination as long as its popular" implies that I recognize something as discrimination outright. First I would have to believe a certain thing is discrimination, which requires being convinced. Also this does not imply that me personally being convinced has anything to do with popular opinion on any matter. How can I be okay with something that is discriminatory if I do not realize it is discriminatory? Show me how or why and I might agree that something is discriminatory. I do like hearing arguments, debates, and hopefully some research before reaching a conclusion whether something is or not.
Gay marriage *at the moment* is an exception because I have heard very compelling arguments with sound logic and reasoning supporting it, rhetorical and empirical. If one day I hear very strong arguments for another non-traditional type of marriage, I may be convinced. I never personally came up with the idea that gay marriage was an issue to be resolved; at some point in my life I heard about the issue, I heard arguments from both sides, and based on those arguments and evidence I reached the conclusion that it is discriminatory. Again, I am open to ideas and new ways of thought.
I don't think that this is such a difficult concept that someone can change their opinion and views over time when presented with superior reasoning. Show me how other non-traditional marriages are fair and the current status is discriminatory, and I may change my mind. It doesn't even have to be marriage; it can be any political topic. We can debate it on this forum. Maybe a new idea will spring out and catch on.
Perhaps it needs to be specified that plenty of studies have been done about gay marriage that find all kinds of correlations. But none of them can be tied to causation for good reasons. That is not proof of absence.
When I mention studies I meant studies in terms of the questions posed such as:
-How do children of gay couples fare? (Studies found that they do not fare any better or worse, or are loved any more or less...basically there is no adverse affects to children living with gay parents)
-Will bringing forth gay marriage undermine marriage itself for straight couples (studies found that marriage rates have not been impacted)
-Does restricting gay marriage appear to adversely affect gay people (guess this one!)
These questions have been asked and their results are accepted. If another non-traditional marriage would be proposed, it would probably fall under the same scrutiny.
Do you have studies that show that if people and animals or men with multiple women/women with multiple men could get married that somehow damages society in a tangible way that gay (or, frankly, even straight) marriage does not?
Nope, I do not. Isn't that the point of what I have been saying? I would like to see studies and hear good arguments before making a decision.
But I see what you are doing; switching the burden of proof to say that unless adverse affects can be shown, we should allow it. If that is your preferred argument...that we should remove all restrictions on the definition of legal marriage unless proven otherwise...then, well, that is your argument. Pretty radical and a little hasty, no? Personally, I would be more conservative and suggest that we take a look and see if the current status is discriminatory, and by loosening the restrictions and rules on marriage we should expect societal and economic benefit before reaching a conclusion.
But I don't think that was your argument or what you were trying to get at. I think you just used a rhetorical question as a slippery slope, no? I can rephrase your statement to be "If gay marriage doesn't damage society, then can you prove that marrying animals/multiple spouses/etc won't damage society?". It is really a misleading statement because what is being said is "If A = B, then C = B". Note that this is a logical fallacy and is not the same as "If A=B AND B=C, then A = C". Applying that to rewrite your statement, it would read "If gay marriage doesn't damage society, AND [other form of] marriage doesn't damage society, then gay marriage is on equal terms with [other form of] marriage ", which is a true statement, and legally would deserve equal protection. True in philosophical/computer/statistical logic sense. Note that in my rephrasing, "other form of marriage" became a given, which assumes it has been proven or assumed true...
...That seems to be today's theme... give me a good argument with good evidence and I will probably change my mind.
