To quote CS Lewis (The Problem of Pain): “Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of ‘retribution’. And what can be more outrageous than to catch me and submit me to a disagreeable process of moral improvement without my consent, unless (once more) I deserve it? On yet a third level we get vindictive passion — the thirst for revenge…. The good thing of which vindictive passion is the perversion comes out with startling clarity in Hobbes’s definition of Revengefulness, ‘desire by doing hurt to another to make him condemn some fact of his own.’ Revenge loses sight of the end in the means, but its end is not wholly bad — it wants the evil of the bad man to be to him what it is to everyone else.”

marriage, as a monogamous heteresexual thing, is not new, right? It’s been around for centuries. I’m not “suddenly” inserting anything. The proposal for sudden insertions is entirely from the same-sex lobby.

This.

At this point I am pretty convinced that tildeb has no interest in serious debate; at a minimum tildeb seems to fail to think any response through at all. In other words, tildeb may not actually be a troll, but is one nonetheless for any functional purpose.

The fact is that throughout the ages marriage has only ever meant a male-female union, including in those cultures which admired gay relationships and even in those which did not distinguish between the sexes at all with respect to romance.

tildeb:
If X is marriage, then why are you suddenly inserting opposite-sex as if it properly defines it? This is exactly the discrimination we’re talking about.

…you do realise that marriage, as a monogamous heteresexual thing, is not new, right? It’s been around for centuries. I’m not “suddenly” inserting anything. The proposal for sudden insertions is entirely from the same-sex lobby.

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, just isn’t a thing in most countries. But there’s still no discrimination. Straight people can’t get gay married either. Of course, regardless of the fact that marriage is a heterosexual arrangement, gay people can still get married to someone of the opposite sex. (And likewise, in countries such as Canada where same-sex marriage is a thing, straight people can do it too). If they couldn’t, you would have a case for discrimination. But the laws are equally applied to all. The only difference is what things are legal in which countries.

If you want to argue that same-sex marriage should be a thing that’s legally recognised, go for it. But argue it on its own merits, not by pretending that it’s something different.

Let’s look at your analogy and make the same kind of substitution:

“We accept that X is inherently a positive thing, but it must be engaged in responsibly. Hence we will prohibit those who are too young to be responsible from engaging in X. But beyond that restriction, we allow everyone to engage in X.”

Let’s substitute:

“We accept that driving is inherently a positive thing, but it must be engaged in responsibly. Hence we will prohibit those who are too young to be responsible from engaging in driving. But beyond that restriction, we allow men everywhere to engage in driving.”

If the point is age, then there is no reason to introduce gender.

If the point is marriage, there there is no reason to introduce gender.

Now do you see the problem defining marriage and its social benefits to promote a public good to suddenly be conditional on opposite-sex partners? Without linking why opposite- versus same-sex marriages are demonstrably superior – what I call possessing an inherent positive value that can be shown to be undermined or negated by changing the partners to same-sex – then the argument is based on a presupposition that may or may not be true. And I’ve done the same by introducing the presupposition that only men can be responsible drivers; without showing why this is the case, the discrimination against women drivers is (I hope) obvious in the same way that the discrimination against same-sex partners from marrying is equivalently obvious.

tildeb:
You can’t say it’s a good or bad argument simply because you are for or against ‘X’, for or against same-sex marriage, unless you address why the discrimination its necessary for a positive value to be upheld. This is what must be done to justify other legal discriminations… such as age restrictions and functional restrictions.

This makes no sense.

Let us consider your positive example of discrimination, the case of age restrictions:
“We accept that X is inherently a positive thing, but it must be engaged in responsibly. Hence we will prohibit those who are too young to be responsible from engaging in X. But beyond that restriction, we allow everyone to engage in X.”
This seems sensible, and you seem to approve of the logic.

Now let’s consider your presentation of same-sex marriage:
“We accept that X is inherently a positive thing. Everyone has a right to do X. Some people want to do Y instead of X. Denying those people the right to do Y is discriminatory.”
See where the logic all falls apart?

These two things are independent. X is perceived as socially beneficial (for consenting adults), so all consenting adults may engage in X. Now you propose that Y should be permitted. But rather than demonstrating that Y is socially beneficial, you instead try to redefine X to include Y.

Surely, if Y were really worth promoting, it could garner support based on its own merits?

And in case you’re still having difficulty grasping why legal inequality is the central issue here, let me use letters instead to describe the argument you support put forth against SSM:

Denying people who want/need/have to do X the right to do X is not discriminatory because they have the same right as everyone else to do Y.

Denying people who want to marry a same-sex partner is not discriminating because they have the same right as everyone else to marry an opposite-sex partner.

This is a bad argument. This stands apart from any good or bad arguments that you think may be made for or against ‘X’, for or against same-sex marriage. You can’t say it’s a good or bad argument simply because you are for or against ‘X’, for or against same-sex marriage, unless you address why the discrimination its necessary for a positive value to be upheld. This is what must be done to justify other legal discriminations… such as age restrictions and functional restrictions. And this is exactly what you seem unable to provide for this discrimination, which renders your argument against X, against same-sex marriage, null and void of merit.