History serves a guide. Why haven't we seen, other than a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, SSM before?<quoted text>
Why is it so important to base this issue on history?
Slavery?I can easily go back and find that major cultures and society utilized slavery from beginning to end. It's still an issue today--some 27,000,000 people are estimated to be enslaved today around the world.
The issue before us is how society/state defines marriage. Why haven't societies in the past organized themselves around the concept of marriage as a union of two persons regardless of gender composition?But OUR society--our country--DOES NOT condone slavery.
If we were creating policy based on what history supported, then (using your argument) there should be legalized slavery in the U.S. today.
The concept of a "gay" identity is relatively new, and I believe a western idea. SSSB occurred in ancient Rome, but they didn't slap rainbow bumper stickers on their chariots.You cannot base your arguments about how gays have been treated throughout history as an argument for how we should be treated today.
Medical findings which are inconclusive. SSSB us not new, equating it with marriage, is.We have modern medical findings and contemporary beliefs about gays and lesbians.
Merits, or lack there of. Clearly there are reasons that despite the presence, acceptance, and/or celebration of, SSSB, among various societies in the past, it did not necessarily result in SSM. Such reasons should be considered before our society fundamentally alters a key component of society with state recognition. The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few.THAT should be the basis for how we go forward.
Same-sex marriage SHOULD BE based on its own merits--not on how history has treated the matter.