Because you keep using words like "traditionally".    Traditionally, marriages were done to procreate.   That's not a concern in SSM. 

Just throw "tradition" and "long been recognized" from your argument and we're done here.

The ability to procreate has never been a requirement of marriage. Marriage has never been a requirement to procreate.

That same sex couples have traditionally been denied the right to marry (as interracial couples were) doesn't change the fact that legally, marriage has long been recognized as a right.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
The ability to procreate has never been a requirement of marriage. Marriage has never been a requirement to procreate.

That same sex couples have traditionally been denied the right to marry (as interracial couples were) doesn't change the fact that legally, marriage has long been recognized as a right.

But apparently one that doesn't merit 14th amendment protection, contrary to what you've been arguing all along.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
The ability to procreate has never been a requirement of marriage. Marriage has never been a requirement to procreate.

That same sex couples have traditionally been denied the right to marry (as interracial couples were) doesn't change the fact that legally, marriage has long been recognized as a right.

But apparently one that doesn't merit 14th amendment protection, contrary to what you've been arguing all along.

Thats debatable. 40 years ago the supreme court said no. Last year an appellate court said yes. We'll find out soon which is right.

Procreation has traditionally been the reason for marriage.  Or at least the act of sex.   Doesn't apply to SSM.

Just throw "tradition" and "long been recognized" from your argument and we're done here.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Thats debatable. 40 years ago the supreme court said no. Last year an appellate court said yes. We'll find out soon which is right.

Supreme Court rulings are debatable?

Traditionally, teh gheys weren't seen or heard.  

That's another reason that "long been recognized" is horrible for your argument of SSM.

No one has ever argued that same sex marriage was tradition. The argument is that marriage is a right that has historically been denied to same sex couples.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Thats debatable. 40 years ago the supreme court said no. Last year an appellate court said yes. We'll find out soon which is right.

Isnt this actually false logic?

The Federal Appeals court should have accepted the ruling of the state court based on precedent from the SC.

I realize that isnt always true, but that is the way it is supposed to work.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/1/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Thats debatable. 40 years ago the supreme court said no. Last year an appellate court said yes. We'll find out soon which is right.

Isnt this actually false logic?

The Federal Appeals court should have accepted the ruling of the state court based on precedent from the SC.

I realize that isnt always true, but that is the way it is supposed to work.

That does go against tradition, yes.

Then again, somebody here doesn't really place any value in tradition.  Everything should be based on the whims of the present day.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/1/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/1/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Thats debatable. 40 years ago the supreme court said no. Last year an appellate court said yes. We'll find out soon which is right.

Isnt this actually false logic?

The Federal Appeals court should have accepted the ruling of the state court based on precedent from the SC.

I realize that isnt always true, but that is the way it is supposed to work.

That does go against tradition, yes.

Then again, somebody here doesn't really place any value in tradition.  Everything should be based on the whims of the present day.

And the odd part is the person who is against tradition claims the reason to agree with him is tradition??

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 11:24:00 AM (view original):
No one has ever argued that same sex marriage was tradition. The argument is that marriage is a right that has historically been denied to same sex couples.

Traditionally, same sex couples didn't request to get married.    This is a new phenomenom.

Ok. So what? Marriage is still a long recognized right. In some states that right is being denied to same sex couples.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Ok. So what? Marriage is still a long recognized right. In some states that right is being denied to same sex couples.

Isnt what you mean that marriage isnt being redefined to meet a LGBT standard that was created recently?