So today in a horrid class that I am taking, the professor told us that people who say that tradition is a reason for preventing same sex marriage dont understand history. He told us that in the past, if my brother married a woman I would be prevented from marrying her sister, or if my sister married a man I would be prevented from marrying her sister. Since these are allowed now, obviously same sex marriage should be allowed. This seems a fallacy to me because in neither of these examples was anyone marrying a person of the same sex. The way I understood the traditional marriage argument was not that marriage hasn't changed in the last 6000 years, but that while same sex relationship have existed for a long time, same sex marriage has never been permitted. Now my understanding may be flawed because I dont argue in favor of same sex marriage and so never hear the arguments against it (other than my own obviously and I dont use the traditional marraige argument). So I ask you my liberal readership, do people actually argue that marriage has not changed ever and so we shouldnt change it now, or is my professor a quack?
Posted by arfanser at 5:13 PM