Why do you think laws exist? They exist to protect. They protect people from other people and they protect people from buisnesses and the government. Some even protect people from animals or cars. Who does banning gay civil unions protect?
How does a gay couple not getting married hurt me? Simple!

But you're not gay and in a relationship. Just as it doesn't hurt you if gay marriage is legalized it doesn't help you, either. Therefore, your argument is flawed.

I can't explain something I never said.

Then please, for the sake of everyone in this thread, what IS it that you have said, since what you just said you didn't say is the only thing I can come up with as the primary thread of argument against gay marriage that we have here.

The bedrock ideal of this country is equality of opportunity. We teach it to every child, we say it in the pledge of allegiance, we go on and on about it. It hasn't always worked, but it has been an omnipresent force in American culture and politics. Nothing is different between the gay rights movement and the black civil rights movement, and I feel very secure in thinking that the history books will agree with me on that.

To echo will's closing quotation:

Which argument of mine is flawed? Are you postulating that if it doesn't directly hurt me, I shouldn't be concerned about it? Ok.

Other things I am not:

Black.
Asian.
Hispanic.
Female.
Christian.
Jewish.
Muslim.
Hindu.
Buddhist.
Shinto.
Zoroastrian.
European.
Ennuit.
Race car driver.
Lesbian mulatto touch-typist.

Are you of the opinion that I shouldn't care if laws are passed denying any or all of these groups the same privaleges of straight white heterosexual men, because I happen to be a straight white heterosexual man? That sort of seems like a very plausible interpretation of what you're saying.

But really, most importantly, we now have a third for the motion. Either yourself (although of course, you never said it) or maybe NCB is up to bat.

Many federal (and state) policies and laws are not enacted to benefit the majority, but to protect the minority.

The fact that provding comparable benefits to gay couples does not impact you (who opposes it) or me (who supports it) in a postive or negative manner does not make an argument in favor of such a policy flawed.

What you and NCB have failed to articulate is how such a policy or law would hurt the majority, and thus the country (leaving aside NCB's baseless arguments about family stability and a gay agenda in sex ed.)

i'll try this one more time.

in one of my earlier posts that fell by the wayside is tried to outline infinite loser's logic: it seems to me that he operates with some conception or another of natural law theory that he arbitrarily maps onto the american legal system. so you have certain ways of grouping, certain categories, that from his viewpoint must remain static because they correlate to this "natural law" assumption.

the problem is not just that this natural law business is arbitrary--and anyone who has looked at this kind of thinking can see that it is little more than a mapping onto secular terms of basically religious norms---but more that his claims cut back and forth without being up front about what they are doing.

here is something like the series of claims.

1. the american legal systems classifications concerning marriage are strangely unique amongst all classifications that the system relies upon because, unlike them, it is not defined and redefined through practice, through the history of the system itself as it reacts to changes in the context within which it operates. explanation: for infinite loser, the notion of marriage is a natural law category. breaking this down: il approves of the rightwing redefinition of marriage as it is emerging through the controversy about gay marriage. but because he position about marriage is also routed through natural law, it follows that he has no choice but to pretend that the conservative redefinition of marriage is in fact not a redefinition at all.


claims 2: when it suits tactical purposes (cut one) il will concede changes in other categories (so as to avoid being lumped in with segregationists in the early 1960s who reverted to this same kind of argument to legitimate their positions) but (cut two) will nonetheless argue that marriage is a natural law category and so should not be redefined in any way.

claim 3: at this time, the category marriage is defined in one direction and there are no negative implications of this because the category is as it is. any category operates more by exclusion than by inclusions so whaddya worried about? if you want categories, you have to accept exclusions. as a statement about logical categories, this makes sense, but as a statement about categories within the american legal system, it doesnt---simply becaue it treats categories as static and so ignores the basic constituitve feature of the american common law tradition, which is its fluidity (hedged round by a continual reinterpretation of the constitution)

inifinite loser's logic is blurry is you push at it, but these blurry claims are advanced wrapped up in the discourse of logic--except that he never actually discloses the assumptions that shape his own position (which would be typical of a natural law type argument--why disclose? its nature, damn it...)

Roachboy, I think you're probably right....

Infinite Loser and NCB: Let me assess things further by going down the list of typical arguments against gay marriage.

1. It will ruin marriage as we know it.
Actually, Marriage as we knew it is already ruined. As has been stated numerous times, we already have a 48% divorce rate. Gay people certainly can't fuck it up worse than that, can they? Leading us to the Pro-camp's claim:

A. Gay marriage won't screw up marriage - how would someone else's marriage affect you? You're not married to them! Leading to Against-Camp's next salle:

2. If Gay marriage won't hurt anyone else, it won't help you, either, since you're straight. What do you care? Ahem, see Pro-Camp's next point:

B. We're not saying that gay marriage will help US in particular (except Gilda, of course). We're saying that it is wrong to limit the civil rights of any group of people, and marriage is a CIVIL right (not just a religious one). We want equal rights for all, and all rights for all, not just those we like.

3. Against-Camp's next point: marriage is for having babies, and gay people can't do that without a lot of help. It's not "natural". Leading to Pro-camp's point C:

C. Lots of hetero relationships do not result in children. By choice, and by natural occurence of inability to have children. Yet, they get to be married and enjoy all the civil rights associated with marriage.

Further, lots of hetero couples need a lot of medical/social help to have children. (I have a few friends who have gone down that road.) "Naturally" they should not be able to, but due to advances in science or the ability to adopt, they do have children. But they're allowed to be married and enjoy those civil benefits. Thus there is no biological reason for gay people to not be married with or without children (of one of them, or adopted).

Next! Against-Camp's #4:

4. Gay people are only 3-5% of the population. Why should they make the rest of us change what we think marriage should be? It's always blah-blah-blah special interest groups. Majority rules!

D. In terms of who we elect, yes. What products stay in business, yes. But for civil rights? No. All people must be treated equally under the law of the U.S. That is what we built this country on. "Hey, there are only two black people in this town, so they can just sit in the back of the bus." Uhhhh, no. Not anymore. Leading us to Against-Camp #5:

5. But this isn't anything like civil rights or suffrage.

E. Yes, yes it is. Rights are being denied to a particular group for no reason other than who they love. All people in the U.S. deserve equal treatment under the law. That's it.
_________________________________________________________________
As for religion... religion needs to stay out of this. Religion is for the churches and temples and shrines. Religion is not for the courthouses or justices of the peace or the legislation. This is a civil issue. It should remain so.

Anyone's lack of freedom is my lack of freedom. That's the way freedom works.

You still haven't answered my question. Instead you called it silly and issued a thoughtless challenge that I've just overcome. Answer this: What actual tangible harm does it do to have a gay couple marry?

Let's assume that this "fact" is true. Then would it be logical to conclude children thrive better in families which make over 1 billion dollars a year. Therefore only families that make over a billion dollars a year should be allowed to marry.

Your logic is flawed NCB, stating that children do better in heterosexual families does not mean that children are neglected in homosexual families....

I wonder how that would effect inflation....

I see that you've taken what I stated and miscontrued it (More straw man). Nowhere did I tell you that you shouldn't care. I dare you to find where I stated as much, or even insinuated as much. The argument that I shouldn't care because it doesn't affect me is a two way street, as it can also be applied to your view on gay marriage.

What planet are you living on? If you can find me one country-- Either past, present or future-- Which is built upon the premise that you are advocating here, then I'll admit to being wrong about my view on gay marriage. While the concept of freedom for everyone is noble, it's not accurate. Other people's lack of freedom is, in many instances, your gain.

To clarify, you didn't overcome my challenge (Not that it was a challenge to begin with, but I'm using your words). Can I produce a list of tangible harms that would come of gay marriage? Nope. And I've never claimed I could. Can you produce a list of tangible harms that would come from not legalizing gay marriage? Nope. But you have claimed you could. What we can both produce, however, is a list of intangible harms which we believe might occur if/if not gay marriage is ever universally legalized.

Good to see the concession.

Quite easily. Shared medical insurance. Hospital visitation. Legally protected rights to a relationship with children. There are roughly a thousand rights same-sex couples are denied as result. That is a whole bunch of tangible harm.

You could have made a lot of arguments. This is, perhaps, your worst option, for reasons that I see Gilda has already noted.

I beg to disagree. I understand what you're saying, I believe, however I disagree with the implications. To wit:

I don't understand why you care if gay people can get marrierd because it doesn't affect you, and you don't see why I care about gay people getting married, because it doesn't affect me. That's the point you are making. So, neither of us should care, on that basis alone.

Fine.

Now, I argue that gay people are being denied civil rights because they can not enter into civil marriages. Neither of us should care for direct personal reasons, but I will side with the position which seems to give other people the same rights I have, and which has no affect on me. Why would you fall on the other side?

Which comes back to the question that bastid put forth, I seconded, and Frostbyte thirded.




+
I would argue ratbastid's statement is a pretty decent interpretation of the above.


gilda got to it before me, and it's only been stated about fifteen times in the thread so far.

So, back to this:

You're advocating state-sponsored selfishness. The US was bui8lt upon the princeple that all men are created equal. That implies equal treatment. That implies that justice is the same no matter if you are tall, short, man, woman, gay or straight. Freedom for everyone is societies gain, and the individual who seeks to stop one from being free for their own selfish gain is evil, and has no place in a free society.

I never said this, but since you brought it up...

Gay marriage would cause the divorce rate per year to increase by a sizeable margin. That is, of course, unless divorce would only be limited to heterosexuals.

(Those aren't my views, but could be considered a defense of the aforementioned premise.)

The "I don't care what someone else does as long as it doesn't bother me" argument is fundamentally flawed. Assuming that you're heterosexual, I could ask you what harm would come to you by not allowing homosexuals to marry and your answer would be "No harm". There's no tangible harm done to me by allowing homosexuals to marry and there is no tangible harm done to you by not allowing them marry. So why do either of us care?

There is no such thing as equal rights for all. Since when has it become wrong to limit the civil rights of individuals? Since someone decided that gay marriage shouldn't be prohibited? It amazes me how people can completely ignore the fact that there are literally thousands of "Civil rights" which are prohibited to certain peoples, and a good majority of them are more important than whether or not gays are allowed to marry.

I'll make this simple:

Marriage is a strictly human concept (Though some animals do mate for life).

The underlying premise of marriage is to produce offspring and to provide a stable environment in which to raise them.

Heterosexuals can produce offspring while homosexuals can't. While not all heterosexuals produce offspring in a marriage, many of them do. No homosexual can produce offspring.

Therefore, from a purely biological standpoint, there is no reason for two homosexuals to try to "mate" as they can't. Two homosexuals will NEVER produce offspring.

Since two homosexuals can't mate and produce children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to giving homosexuals the right to marry while withholding the child-producing benefits from them.

By the way... The number of marriages which don't produce children are few and far between (I just thought you'd like to know) when compared the number of them that do.

I bolded the pertinent part. I'm sick and tired of the "All people must be treated equally under the United States Constitution!" argument, because that's a load of BS. You live in a country where people are denied basic rights-- Constitutionally, I might add-- Based on age, national origin, race, mental capacity, etc; Inequalities which, by the way, the majority of people live with and accept. But none of that matters. No! Let's instead claim that all groups are treated equally, save homosexuals.

Notice how the ONLY people thus far to mention religion are those in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Why is that?

This is an argument that will never end so i will simply put my opinion out there and stand back while it gets bashed and grug through the mud. I have noticed that COnservatives are way less active in forum type of settings then liberals so most of you will not agree with I have to say and I could honestly care less.

Somebody said in here that marriage is not religious issue but a civil issue. That may be the case when it comes to taxes and property and such things, but there are quite a few people out there who would argue that their marriage means more to them then being abel to file joint taxes. It is a big deal and, in my case, divorce is not an option. I do not get married thinking that if it doesnt work out I can always just get out. Anyway taht is not the issue.

Homosexual marriage scares people. It scares me. Wy should something so beautiful be taken and IMO Drug through the mud and be made to seem so dirty. Marriage was intended to be between a man and a women. Why else has it not become an issue until now.
If it was ever intended to be between two homsexuals, then there would have been an amendment or a clause or something in there.
The fact of the matter is that not every man was created equal. It simply cannot and will never be. There are certain right that Americans think they have, that they do not.
Some people have more rights then others. Some people have more privelage then others. Don't believe me. When have you ever seen a white kid get help from the NAACP. Lets face it America is run on the Golden rule. He who has the most gold makes all the rules.
It is funny to sit here and see people get all offended and uo tight abotu this issue. If same sex marriage is legalized, then so be it. I won't vote for a politician that is in favor of it but if I am in the minority then our legal system will provide the Homosexuals of America to "marry". It has no effect on my vows and will most likely not affect me at all. I hope they are happy and feel good about their decision.
At that point it would be their right. It make me wonder if the Federal government does not recognoze the union and it is only recognized by the state what benefits do you really get out of it. Maybe Peace of mind knowing that you went against the grain and fought the good fight.
That makes little if any sense to me. Why fight to fight. it proves nothing except that there is always a loser and it is never fun to be a loser.

IL....you still havent responded to a point I made earlier: How is this argument (below) flawed?

Your unflinching commitment to a natural law/social-Darwinist definition of marriage is mind-boggling.

The underlying premise of MARRIAGE is to transfer property. Marriage was developed by societies to streamline the transfer of property between the male heads of families to appropriate male heirs in order to deal with scarcity of resources. The Family Values notion of marriage you espouse is a byproduct of that property purpose, but was NOT the underlying purpose of the civil and social institution that we call marriage. WOMEN (along with their dowries) were SOLD by one family to another in exchange for peace or access to resources or cows or cloth or something else. It was a society constructed mechanism for men to allocate and control their property. Children are a natural and convenient outcome of the arrangement, but the "purpose of marriage" was not to "make a safe and happy home for kids."

You have your very personal definition of what marriage means that represents an unwavering loyalty to an ideal that, as far as I can tell, is purely a construct of your own opinion. Furthermore, you are so committed to that definition that you would rather prevent other people from getting married and reaping the benefits of being married (of which there are many). THAT is the difference between me and you. My conception of marriage allows you to feel that way about marriage and Gilda to feel her way about marriage and will to feel his way and me to feel my way. And we can all get married by whoever we can find to marry us to whomever we want. You want to require the rest of the world to conform to your arbitrary definition of what marriage is and means for no other reason than you think it's right. That sentiment flies in the face of some 500 years of social progress across all spheres of human society, and explains why we're so confused and taken aback at how you respond to our argument.

Nope. Even if every same sex couple were divorced, it would have a negligible effect on the divorce rate, and there is no evidence that same-sex couples would divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals.

It's always been wrong to do so on the basis of prejudice. It's been unconstitutional since 1868:

Yet, you find this one important enough to argue that millions of Americans should be denied it.

This is one of many, many purposes. The bolded part logically favors same-sex marriage.

This is factually wrong. Homosexuals often can and do reproduce. My wife (who is homosexual, by the way)will likely be doing so next year sometime if we're ever successful at the artificial insemination.

The same is true of homosexuals.

You keep repeating this as if it will make it true. It still remains untrue.

It's fun to try, though. I would point out, though, that we're talking a civil contract, not biology.

Not offspring that are biologically related to both parents, no. This is true of many heterosexual couples as well.

By doing so you would be denying the children being raised by same-sex couples many benefits.

The number of same sex marriages would be few and far between compared to the number of heterosexual marriages. Many of them do produce children.

No one is claiming that all groups are treated equally, just that all adults should be treated equally under the law as guaranteed in the Constitution.

This brings us back to the argument regarding infertile couples. Should they be denied the right to marry? If, after marriage, they become infertile before the birth of a child, should their marriage be forcefully annulled?



You might want to bring this up to the Supreme Court. I recall something about the 14th Amendment, Section 1. Why are you sick and tired of people expecting our government and legislative bodies to adhere to the constitution?


That may be because the main argument against gay marriage has come from the religious right? Where else does the argument that homosexuality is a deviance and an abomination come from?

Florida, a dislike and a sense of fear associated with gay marriage, while I don't really fully understand, is perfectly fine, in my opinion. I don't think anyone is thinking that you have to like it. You know? The idea of two dudes getting it on is kind of unappealing to me, on a direct personal level. But I don't think there's anything wrong with two gay guys getting it on, and in the abstract I realize it's just a beautiful thing as a guy and girl. When it comes down down to it, the idea of anyone I know getting it on is kind of icky to me, and I don't think I'd like to see all my personal ridiculous facial contortions and awkward movement, etc.

You commentary on the NAACP has nothing to do with the laws of our country, and I bet you could found the NAAWP if you wanted to. Assuming the NAAWP wasn't overtly racist, I guarantee you its legal, because the Klan is still around - and they are definately racist.

I agree that money talks, but I don't think that's germane to this discussion. There are some awfully rich gay people around.

I'd also guess that gays would fight for legal recognition of their marriages on the state level because it's a step in the inevitable process of national legalization.

I also agree that we don't have many rights, as American citizens, that we think we do and should have. I see that as a problem. I'm comfortable with people having more rights, pretty much all the time, unless there is a very good reason to curtail them. Perhaps you are not. That's a different discussion. But I don't think that its germane to this discussion.

I am curious as what is it about gay marriage that scares you, and why do you feel it drags your marriage through the mud? I'm not married, but if I do get married, I can't see how anyone else relationship will affect the importance of my own. All the meaning of that relationship comes from the couple involved and what they put into it, as far as I understand.

In a slightly different wrinkle, it occurs to me that this isn't actually true. What's the feeling on using genetic material from a male who is related to the non-getting-pregnant member of a lesbian couple, or a related female to carry the child for a gay male couple? I'd think it might be rather common, and then you do sort of the genetics of both parents involved.

I sort of wish I had a lesbian sister, and then she used my sperm to impregnate her wife. I could then brag that I'd knocked up my sister's wife. That would be so Alabama Man.

That would be me, but that's not exactly what I said. I said this debate is over civil marriage. This is a fact. There are two basic forms of marriage, religious/spiritual and civil. Churches and spiritual organizations are already free to conduct or not conduct and recognize marriages as they see fit.

Of course it does, and I applaud you for treating your marriage with such respect and for honoring it as you do. My marriage is the single most important thing in my life, and will be regardless of whether the government ever recognizes it. I said as much early on in the thread. My religious marriage is very important to me, I imagine in much the same way yours is to you. This debate, however isn't about that form of marriage.

Excellent. I feel the same about my marriage. We're quite a bit alike in that way.

I agree that it's a beautiful thing. That's part of why I married the woman I love.

The social conditions have never been right previous to now.

Like an amendment guaranteeing every person equal protection under the law? That would be the 14th.

That is a statement of legal and social principle, a goal to strive for, not meant to be taken as descriptive.

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Except that if same-sex marriage is recognized, the "losers", the anti-gay marriage crowd, don't really lose anything, while those of us who are gay and do want to have the legal protections lose a great deal with every law that treats us unequally.

Yep, the child produced would have genes from the same grandparents, and thus be the carrier of the genetic line for both sides of the family.

It happens with some lesbian couples. Grace and I didn't go that route because it made my brother a little uncomfortable and I really don't care about having a genetic relationship with my children.

I think it's probably rare for gay male couples. Those I know with kids have adopted or have a child from a previous relationship.

Sissy once joked that it would be cool if she'd stored some sperm while she was still pre-op, then we could have used that to get Grace pregnant, resulting in my sister being the one who knocked up my wife.

You notice I_L hasn't touched this. His arguments aren't aimed at the people who are actually affected by this. He's grandstanding to those who--by his own argument--really shouldn't give a damn. When it comes to actually getting into the shoes of someone whose life is dramatically impacted by this particular brand of bigotry, he's notably silent.

Unlike, I'd wager, the anti-gay proponents in this thread, I actually know several gay people. I'm friends with them, including several in very stable, committed relationships. It would make a BIG difference in their lives to have the legal status that a married couple enjoys. And since I care about them, it would make a big difference in my life for them to have that.

How is my day-to-day living tangibly impacted by it (beyond the intangible impact of being happy for my friends)? Maybe not much. But given that I_L has just demonstrated that nobody's who's not personally impacted can say it makes that much difference to them, why not do the thing that's more in keeping with the spirit of what our forebears fought and died for--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for EVERY American?

Nope, because it's possible for an infertile couple to produce a child, thanks to modern science. There is absolutely, positively no way for a homosexual couple to produce children. What I can't understand is that if marriage isn't about producing children, then why wouldn't you agree to gay marriage without the child-producing benefits?

The notion that everyone is treated equally is great in concept, but absolutely unatainable in praotce. You still neglect the fact that, as you sit here and read this thread, you're benefiting from a certain group of people not having the same privileges as you do. If you could ask the Supreme Court whether or not they believe that everyone should have the exact same rights and privileges as everyone else, they'll flat out tell you no. The fact that one group is discriminated against for the good of the majority is an integral part of any society.

The fact is that homosexuality has long since been considered taboo by many cultures throughout history. As NCB pointed out earlier, many African, South American, Asian, North American and European cultures openly condemned homosexuality. That's where the argument that homosexuality is a deviance and an abomination come from. Simply because the religious right, as you want to call them, are the most boisterous doesn't mean that they're the only opposition.

I haven't told anyone not to care. I find it funny that you tell me not to care because it doesn't concern me yet you don't take your own advice. Oh, and just for the record, there's a difference with empathy and agreeance. I can empathize all day long with homosexuals; That doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with gay marriage.

I'd like to take that bet, please :D

Simply because I oppose gay marriage doesn't mean that I have a problem associating or making friends with homosexuals.

I never said that no one could care about anything which doesn't directly affect them. Just don't tell me that I can't care about whether or not gay marriage is legalized because it doesn't affect me when the same also applies to you. That just makes you a hypocrite.

By the way, our forefathers were bigots and slave-owners (In case you didn't know).

I just want to point out, I_L, your last post was a complete non-response to my post that preceded it. As far as responding to the points I was making, your answer was basically content-free.

I repeat my bottom line: What's the problem with choosing kindness and acceptance and inclusiveness? I don't get it at all.

There's nothing wrong with showing kindness towards others and accepting them as indivuduals, but simply because you're accepting of people doesn't mean you have to be accepting of their practices.

And that's the bottom line.

Because children are born to, adopted by, and raised by same-sex couples.

Yet you continue to argue against equal treatment.

You have yet to show how discrimination against homosexuals benefits society.

If I remove the uterus of a woman, or tie up a man's vas deferens, there is NO WAY they are making a baby, regardless of the advances of modern science. They can still get married. Do you believe they shouldn't be allowed to do so?

Yes, they are statistically a small portion of heterosexual marriages.

We've already established that gay people are a small percentage of our population.

Hey, at least that's not vague. ;) We talking illegal aliens, we talking exploited foreign labor, people who have been banned from the public library, what?

And this is germane how? What they will tell you is that everyone should have the exact same rights, unless there is a strong and compelling interest of the state to deny those rights. The proponents of gay marriage are saying there is no such compelling interest. You have failed to demonstrate that there is one.

That's not the point. See earlier plethora of posts. Without an actual account of why it would be harmful to society, (ie. compelling interest issue again), what that means is IL doesn't like gay marriage. No one really cares whether you agree with or like gay marriage.I think this argument is about the legality of it (again). I don't agree with or like casseroles. I don't think they should be illegal.



My grandfather didn't mind hanging out with black people. He just didn't want them to have the same rights that white people had. He was a racist. His point of view has gradually become less accepted, and legally his position was overturned. The same thing is happening right now with homosexuals.


No one said you can't care about it. It has been said that I (and others) don't understand why you care about keeping it illegal. Care about it til the cows come home. See earlier posts on this subject. There are about ten-fifteen of them.

And they founded a country, within their society's understanding, which was based on a set of general principles that espoused a respect for the freedom, liberty and justice (for all) of every citizen (and even people not citizens, but we've really moved away from that these days. "All men are created equal doesn't not mean all American citizens, but that's another topic). The more we've learned and evolved, the more inclusive our society has become. This is just one of the more recent cases. I'll be that polygomy will be legalized soon too, but once again - that's a separate thread.

edit: I just wanted to reiterate Gilda's point: gay people can and are having kids right and left.

To pick up an earlier point that I think we were discussing primarily with Ustwo concerning homosexuality and population control: I personally feel that people may be acted on by social pressures (much like game theory stuff, as far as I understand it) that may result in an increase in a tendency towards homosexual behavior, which could be considered something of a natural form of population control. However, this affect would be probably fairly small, due to the small percentage of homosexuals and the fact that we have more than just our instictual level of existance. Thus although in a biological vacuum a gay couple can't have children, there are obviously ways for them to overcome this limitation. And the whole point is sort of irrelevant to gay marriage, but I personally find it interesting to muse about.

In this case, actually, I'd say that it does. Homosexuality is a matter of identity. If you can't accept a gay person's gayness, I don't see how you could say that you're accepting of them in any appreciable way at all.

Once again I am reminding everyone that on page 6 I posted the 10 definitions of marriage from the dictionary and not one of them mentioned a single syllable about children or having them. I will repost for reference.

marriage Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

I am particularly fond of #4 and #6. Note not one of the above definitions say anything about children.

INCIDENTALLY! There's this process called Ovular Merging. Google it. It's still several years off in humans, but it's been done successfully in mice. Two ova are manipulated to produce a viable zygote. Only female offspring can be created. Perfectly healthy adult female mice exist in the world right now that were biologically parented by two female mice.

So... it's just a matter of time until technology rains on the "gay couples can't have kids" parade. At that point, what, we'll allow lesbian marriage but not gay men to marry? Because once they can have children together, then lesbians will have satisfied the requirement for marriage, right? I mean, that is what marriage is about, no? ;)

I'm going to remind everyone that I secretly want to knock up my theoretical lesbian sister's wife. ;)

Seriously, crap - I don't have anything serious to say right now. I should probably delete this post, but this entire thread is becoming a mockery of discussion on this subject. I really want to know what compelling interest the state could possibly have in keeping gay marriage illegal, I see it as the only relevant question any more on this topic, and its the one aspect that the critics aren't answering. There have been about fifteen requests for a logical explanation of that one point. Aside from that, as far as I can tell, every other post against gay marriage breaks down to 1. I don't like it. 2. A lot of other societies didn't let gay people get married. Hell, they used to beat 'em with sticks!!! 3. It's an abomination against my version of God, 4. Well, in a theretically isolated space, they can't make babies!!! 5. There's not a lot of them anyways, I don't wanna change or 6. Seriously, I really don't fucking like it.

None of those provide a legal grounds to maintain that gay marriage should be illegal. That's the whole enchilada.

It appears to me that IL's not opposed to accepting their homosexuality. It's the homosexual relations that he's opposed to accepting. Hell, there are a lot of homosexuals out there who - if I'm understanding IL correctly - agree with him.

I don't buy the idea that considering homosexual relations sinful is automatic bigotry.

edit: It does appear to be a case of bigotry with IL - unless he can start explaining himself better (IL, look to pigglet's request above) - but I'm not about to accept it as an absolute.

Sexual orientation's only one aspect of identity, anyway. What's stopping IL from tolerating (or not tolerating) one aspect and accepting others?

Nobody feels any pain
Tonight as I stand inside the rain
Ev'rybody knows
That Baby's got new clothes
But lately I see her ribbons and her bows
Have fallen from her curls
She takes just like a woman, yes she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.

Queen Mary, she's my friend
Yes, I believe I'll go see her again
Nobody has to guess
That Baby can't be blessed
Till she finally sees that she's like all the rest
With her fog, her amphetamine and her pearls
She takes just like a woman, yes she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.

It's was raining from the first
And I was dying there of thirst
So I came in here
And your long-time curse hurts
But what's worse
Is this pain in here
I can't stay in here
Ain't it clear that.

I just can't fit
Yes, I believe it's time for us to quit
When we meet again
Introduced as friends
Please don't let on that you knew me when
I was hungry and it was your world
Ah, you fake just like a woman, yes you do
You make love just like a woman, yes you do
Then you ache just like a woman
But you break just like a little girl.

blonde on blonde is such a great album. i haven't listened to that in years - think it's time to pull 'er up. thanks phil.

you're welcome...the man still has a lot to say...

Where did I ever say that I have a problem with someone being a homosexual or, better yet, where did I state that I couldn't accept homosexuality? Don't put words into my mouth. I simply don't believe gay marriage should be legalized; Nothing more and nothing less.

Yet you haven't put forward a reason why that has not been refuted. Your arguments have had nothing to stand on except your own soapbox, which is likely why you keep returning to the same responses without going to any lengths to back them up.

Yeah, if anti-gay-marriage folks would just admit it's a matter of faith for them, it would save everyone a lot of time. Pretending it's based in logic is just self-delusion; there's no logical foundation for bigotry.

By the way, I've got no problem with somebody who believes as a matter of their faith or their morals or their upbringing or whatever that gay marriage is wrong. That's completely unassailable, as far as I'm concerned. Policy shouldn't be based on such things, but people have every right to believe that.

That's nice to hear. I assume, then, that you'll be supporting other gay rights issues that are not marriage related, such as co-parent adoption and inclusion of orientation and gender identity in anti-discrimination codes related to equal housing and employment policies.

There's probably a gay rights organization somewhere in your area you can join. They're almost always happy to have straight allies.

I'd just like to chime in with a giant 'who cares', this is such a non-issue, what does it matter what people do when it never affects you or anyone else?

That pretty much sums it up for me. Bearing in mind that freedom to practice religion has a prerequisite of freedom from religion, you therefore cannot base public policy on non-secular justifications.

I'd also like to add, I found this very funny!

Sooo.... any compelling interest for the state to maintain illegal status of homosexual marriage? Thank God SC has an Amendment (Amendment #1 no less) on the ballot so that we can not only deny gay people the eventual right to marriage, but all same-sex benefits as well. That's totally awesome!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,6998803.story

The California Supreme Court has overturned the ban on gay marriage. This is a victory for civil rights.

I was really glad to hear this news! :)

I'm GLAAD myself. Nyuk, nyuk.

But seriously, this is quite the big deal. So long as the ballot measure for November fails, California will remain an unsegregated state so far as equal rights for heterosexual and homosexual people. This is a step in the right direction, and I'm very proud that it's happening in my home state.