Supreme Court Issues Ruling On Same Sex Marriage Legalizing Marriage Nat.

[7,052,770]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

That really is a stretch.

What? Are you seriously arguing that the fa'afafine somehow aren't a direct, indisputable counterexample to typical right-wing argument of "marriage was defined by every society and every religious group as the union of a man and a woman"

[Fuzzy Bear]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

That really is a stretch.

What? Are you seriously arguing that the fa'afafine somehow aren't a direct, indisputable counterexample to typical right-wing argument of "marriage was defined by every society and every religious group as the union of a man and a woman"

Colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source for scholarly writing because of its inaccuracies.

Let's say I give you this one example, out of all the societies and civilizations that existed.  If the shoe were on the other foot; if such a group of people were the ONLY group you knew of in the annals of civilization that practiced only man-woman monogamous marriage, would you consider that enough to ban SSM?  This example is so idiosyncratic . . . I mean, I'm at a loss for words if one actually believes that this one counterexample offsets the assertion that marriage being between a man and a woman is how every society has defined marriage.  OK, every society but one, until 15 years ago.  I suspect that this counterexample was known to the plaintiffs who did not point it out because it would appear to support the opposite point of view.

[Skill and Chance]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

That really is a stretch.

What? Are you seriously arguing that the fa'afafine somehow aren't a direct, indisputable counterexample to typical right-wing argument of "marriage was defined by every society and every religious group as the union of a man and a woman"

Colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source for scholarly writing because of its inaccuracies.

Let's say I give you this one example, out of all the societies and civilizations that existed.  If the shoe were on the other foot; if such a group of people were the ONLY group you knew of in the annals of civilization that practiced only man-woman monogamous marriage, would you consider that enough to ban SSM?  This example is so idiosyncratic . . . I mean, I'm at a loss for words if one actually believes that this one counterexample offsets the assertion that marriage being between a man and a woman is how every society has defined marriage.  OK, every society but one, until 15 years ago.  I suspect that this counterexample was known to the plaintiffs who did not point it out because it would appear to support the opposite point of view.

Many native American tribes had a "3rd gender" that would live and work according to the opposite gender's social expectations.  It's only unheard of among agricultural, urban cultures.

[7,052,770]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

That really is a stretch.

What? Are you seriously arguing that the fa'afafine somehow aren't a direct, indisputable counterexample to typical right-wing argument of "marriage was defined by every society and every religious group as the union of a man and a woman"

Colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source for scholarly writing because of its inaccuracies.

Let's say I give you this one example, out of all the societies and civilizations that existed.  If the shoe were on the other foot; if such a group of people were the ONLY group you knew of in the annals of civilization that practiced only man-woman monogamous marriage, would you consider that enough to ban SSM?  This example is so idiosyncratic . . . I mean, I'm at a loss for words if one actually believes that this one counterexample offsets the assertion that marriage being between a man and a woman is how every society has defined marriage.  OK, every society but one, until 15 years ago.  I suspect that this counterexample was known to the plaintiffs who did not point it out because it would appear to support the opposite point of view.

Do you not know what the word "every" means? You said every society believes in man-woman only marriage. A single counterexample is enough to disprove, and I gave you several,  since this is common across traditional Poynesian societies. (Not sure where your 15 year stat comes from. Guessing you meant 1500?)

You alleged 100% by saying every. Don't say "every" if you don't want to be disproven so easily.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

That really is a stretch.

What? Are you seriously arguing that the fa'afafine somehow aren't a direct, indisputable counterexample to typical right-wing argument of "marriage was defined by every society and every religious group as the union of a man and a woman"

Colleges and universities do not accept Wikipedia as a source for scholarly writing because of its inaccuracies.

Let's say I give you this one example, out of all the societies and civilizations that existed.  If the shoe were on the other foot; if such a group of people were the ONLY group you knew of in the annals of civilization that practiced only man-woman monogamous marriage, would you consider that enough to ban SSM?  This example is so idiosyncratic . . . I mean, I'm at a loss for words if one actually believes that this one counterexample offsets the assertion that marriage being between a man and a woman is how every society has defined marriage.  OK, every society but one, until 15 years ago.  I suspect that this counterexample was known to the plaintiffs who did not point it out because it would appear to support the opposite point of view.

Do you not know what the word "every" means? You said every society believes in man-woman only marriage. A single counterexample is enough to disprove, and I gave you several,  since this is common across traditional Poynesian societies. (Not sure where your 15 year stat comes from. Guessing you meant 1500?)

You alleged 100% by saying every. Don't say "every" if you don't want to be disproven so easily.

OK, you win.

[CountryClassSF]

Doesnt make it right.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Same-sex marriage is not unheard of in traditional cultures.
Same-gender marriage on the other hand seems to be a pretty new thing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm assuming that if we look hard enough, we'll find another off-the-grid civilization numbering 100 somewhere on God's Green Earth to where we can elevate such a society to "mainstream" status and really get away from the point that marriage, across all of major western civilization, eastern civilization, African civilization, and even primarily in Polynesian civilization has been AXIOMATICALLY defined as a man and a woman.  That way, we can pretend that SSM has been a cultural norm throughout time, and not something that has been clamored for only in the last 15 years or so.  I'll even give you the last 20 years, which is when Hawaii and Vermont first proposed Civil Unions.  Frankly, the SSM crowd on this point are, in spirit, as intellectually dishonest as the Climate Deniers and Obama Birthers, but they hope to gain acceptance for their view by repeating it over and over.  I try hard here not to impugn other posters for their arguments, but the intellectual dishonesty of people who try to assert that SSM has been a norm throughout the years is something that truly leaves me at a loss for words.

[Crumpets]

Same-sex marriage is not unheard of in traditional cultures.
Same-gender marriage on the other hand seems to be a pretty new thing.

Interesting point. This doesn't change much practically or legally, but I can imagine somebody making the argument "I'd be fine with same-sex marriages just so long as one has to play the male role and the other the female role."