This one is the worst, because it is the opposite of the truth:
I said:
I said I am sure some people truly and sincerely believe in marriage. I do not believe that they only do this because they are particularly impressionable, as I said when I mentioned that they would still be getting married if there were no tools. It was not a lip-service to that sect, and you can tell because in my Halloween analogy I was one of that sect.
Stop saying I'm against tradition; I've already said I approve of getting lost in tradition. I am neither against marriage; I would not be surprised to hear that marriage could be important to someone in particular, but I do not believe it is important to society as a whole.
As for the argument not being the importance of marriage, I'm pretty sure Spoon was arguing just that.
Determining the rights of others is a matter of personal opinion, not of societal norms. I personally believe "the rights of one end where the rights of another begin," and I believe this is the fairest outlook. I suppose it's a little selfish to say then that we should base our laws on it, but I suppose I could argue that point if I really had to.
We didn't need marriage--unenforced monogamy was good enough--to raise our young for the first hundred thousand years of humanity, and I doubt very much we've needed it these last three or four thousand.
The fact that people who got divorced have remarried further mars this "sanctity of the institution" idea. It provides only evidence that the institution is popular. I'd even say the high rate of divorce and remarriage indicates that the gravity of the institution is not fully comprehended by many of those entering into it.
I did not say there are two types of people who get married. I said most people who get married (because as I'm sure you agree, you need only a majority, not a consensus, to decide what is popular, and I was explaining why it is popular) fall into one or both of those groups. I said a third sect truly believes in it. I never once said anything close to denying their existence, merely denying their existence in such numbers as to keep the tradition popular. There are still people who listen to doo-wop, I would argue however that it's not popular.
The differences between prom and marriage were irrelevant to the comparison. Let me spell it our for you.
If they did offer extra credit to Prom goers, however, I would be even more displeased to hear that they were barring any paying student entrance.
[I'll add as a footnote that there are other means by which I can give money to the school, and as such I can benefit the school in the same way without attending prom. This isn't part of the original quote, but as it is part of the analogy it makes the most organizational sense to put it here.]
As you can see, I addressed all of the points being argued.
As Spock once said, a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.
Interestingly, this relates back to the argument. The only difference between marriage and long term commitment à la Gene Simmons is legal recognition. As legal recognition is demonstrably irrelevant to raising a child, the only difference between the two makes no difference. As such, rewarding one over the other is arbitrary.
This also relates to the gay marriage argument, but since no one here is arguing against gay marriage it would be silly to explain in what way.