Hold on Bryan, It will take me a bit to get my words together, but I’ll play.

Bryan, You know what would help is if you, as the blog owner and initiator of the debate, would post a list of your positions on the issue. Also if you could reduce you post language to the things you would like “them”, meaning me, at this at this point to attempt to prove.

As to your request for evidence. I am not going to play dueling experts with you by restating Andrew Sullivan’s positions or arguing with you about Dr. Kurtz’ restated opinion piece. Not to mention I have a day job and do not have time to go on a research spree.

This is about freedom of speech, expressing your opinions, bringing your knowledge, life experience and intellect to bear on a social issue. Is it not?.

Call it setting the ground rules before we start.

“Proponents should, at a minimum, offer up some rational reasons.… to explain why they favor doing somethat that could, potentially, create so many unintended and unforeseen consequences”

The harm done by leftist actions is always fully intended, and the goal is almost always documented. Evil consequences may be unforeseen by some of the lower-level helpers, but the intellectual leaders of the Left are remarkably open in laying out their program of sabotage and its full panoply of damage.

Which, of course, strengthens your argument.….

I’m sympathetic to your endeavor, but I’m not sure it’ll get anywhere. You’re asking proponents of gay marriage to “prove” that the effects you fear won’t happen, when there’s no historical precedent for them to cite. By the same token, because there’s no historical precedent, there’s nothing you can cite to support your hypothesis that gay marriage will damage heterosexual marriage either. By saying, “Well, the burden is on the propoenents of change,” you’re really deciding the issue before the debate has begun. It would be equally legitimate (and equally illegitimate) for a gay marriage proponent to say that, “As the one who wishes to deny equal marriage rights to homosexual citizens, the burden should be on you to explain why gay marriage poses such a threat.”

See what I mean? Neither position really lends itself to a fair debate.

Personally, I don’t even understand the mechanism by which gay marriage is supposed to pose a danger to traditional marriage. I just don’t get it. If I’m living my life monogomously with my wife, I don’t see how the gay couple next door will have any impact on that, and I certainly don’t understand how it affects me one way or the other if they’re shacking up, have a “civil union”, or are married.

I understand that your mileage may vary, but I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly change your mind on this subject if you think, at bottom, that homosexuality is wrong (a view which, while I do not share it, strikes me as one that reasonable people can hold).

In short, I support gay marriage. I don’t have a problem with homosexuality, and I believe that some gay people want the same sort of legally recognized, monogomous, committed relationship that I want with my fiancee, and I can’t think of a good reason to tell them “no”. I suspect you’re correct that not all gays want that. I don’t see why that should be a requirement, though. I don’t see any realilstic way in which gay marriage could pose a threat to the institution of marriage as a whole.

Where I do agree with you, though, is that gay marriage should not be imposed by judicial fiat. If it comes about that way, then I think your slippery slope argmument becomes at least remotely plausible. If various states want to decide for themselves to institute gay marriage, however, I’d support that.

I have to echo the sentiments expressed by Spoons. The only “evidence” I can provide is the impact that gay marriage would have on my own traditional, Catholic, orthodox, heterosexual marriage. What is that impact? None. In fact, if I were to admit that Bob and Bill’s “marriage” in far-away Wisconsin has a negative impact on my own marriage, then shame on me for believing this and abdicating responsibility for the success or failure of my marriage to Bob and Bill. For ultimately, the reverence for the institution of marraige depends only and exclusively on the people making the commitment.

As a general rule, those that push for change take on the burden of proof.

Although gay marriage does not currently exist gay couples do. How do they compare to straight couples? One could probably define the criteria for a gay relationship that compares to straight marriage. This may not be the same as marriage, but it would provide information as to the consequences of gay marriage.

Another issue that must be addressed is the political ramifications of this change. Societies are dynamic not static. Forcing gay marriage down the throat of an unwilling population will have a strong response (aka abortion). Why not seek a middle ground? In reality marriage, in the context of the state, is an economic partnership. Why not offer the partnership to who ever wishes to enter into this economic relationship, with the benifits, responsibilities, and consequences. This is not marriage, just a certified economic relationship between individuals. Leave marriage to churches. One could go as far as some European countries and have a civil contract (which is all that counts) and those that choose also are married in the church of their choice.

Since the above would make both sides very unhappy - it may be about right

“the reverence for the institution of marriage depends only and exclusively on the people making the commitment.” Jimmy, a lot of us believe that God is included in that commitment, too. Not to mention children.

What is the #1 claim of GLBT? “We were born that way.” Wouldn’t ‘fairness’ demand that bi-sexuals get to marry a man & a woman? And if he gets 2 spouses, why can’t I? And why not 3? or more? It’s just more love to go around. If this is all about the happiness of adults, why shouldn’t we legalize group marriage?

For those of you who think this doesn’t affect you, imagine your spouse leaving you for the couple next door. They all decide to get married. You get custody on weekends and 12 spouses in a hot-tub get to raise your children the rest of the week. Who are you to say?

Not to mention what your kids will be taught in school; many already have thinly-disguised coercive recruitment programs.

When the ‘happiness’ of adults is the only criteria, there is no end to it. For example, by what right do you force me to wear clothes in public? You’re forcing your morals on me! What about my happiness?

Marriage in civil society is about children. We’ve already done them enough damage.

I’m a 35 year old conservative lesbian who’s been living with my “wife”/partner/girlfriend/significant other for over four years now. We plan to have kids just as soon as possible (possible in literal terms - I’m not able and she’s currently on active military duty). I’ll just say briefly that I cannot ever begin to express how completely infuriating it is to read people who assume that I am morally inferior simply because I am gay without any regard for how I actually live my day to day life.

I don’t have the exact response you’re looking for - proof, stats, etc. I wish I did. But if you’re holding up the intitution of marriage (and parenting) then I think the numbers of divorce, child abuse, etc. by straights is damning enough.

If your interested in this lesbian’s pov - check out my site, read many of the posts still on the front page, then do a search for gay marriage/religion, etc.

I am a strong supporter of gay marriage. Your “challenge” is interesting to me, in that you seem to cede the basic premise that a prohibition against gay marriage is unfair. Your words are:

“And citing fairness isn’t good enough—there are all sorts of things about life that aren’t fair, but we don’t go toying with the foundations of society to change them. For the most part, we live with them, adjust to them, learn from them and go on.”

Further, in your list of reasons that you are against gay marriage you say nothing to refute this idea. So it seems that we agree that a ban on gay marriage is inequitable.

While I think that such agreement obviously shifts the burden onto those who would like to keep an unfair system in place, I will go a bit further. What are all of the reasons to support heterosexual marriage? Now, what evidence is there to show that the desired societal effects of marriage will not have a similar impact on gay and lesbian couples? Show me something. Anything. I mean, a rough sketch on a cocktail napkin would be fine.

You throw down this “challenge” without presenting a single fact of any kind to support your own point of view. You describe “gays” as “agitators” for “special consideration” who simply won’t stop with marriage. What will be the next “special consideration” those agitating gays fight for… spaceships?

The legalization of gay marriage does not have even the tiniest bit of impact on private religious practice. It is the simple codification of the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage in the legal sense of the term.

Here are just a couple of primers for you on the topic: Andrew Sullivan on Gay Marriage Denying Access to Marriage Harms Families

As a married heterosexual conservative I fail to see how allowing gay marriage would have any effect at all on my relationship with my wife.

I took a look around your site, and I now see that this challenge is an absurdity at best. The idea that you will begin to think rationally on a topic that you see as involving agitating immoral deviants (your own words) is a farce.

Point 5.

“By introducing gay marriage through judicial fiat, which is the path gay marriage proponents have taken, other permutations of marriage are likely to follow. Equal protection—the Constitutional standard that will likely allow gay marriage—is a very blunt weapon. Its use will lead to more support for polyamorous marriage, further eroding the stability of the family and diluting the meaning of marriage.”

My argument:

That the current gay marriage movement will not necessarily lead to polygamous or polygamorous marriages.

The opposition’s position is supposition. Their argument is equal to the position that all roads from Tulsa, Oklahoma invariably lead to San Francisco without even explaining what forces the traveler to the predetermined destination.

If it were to lead to the legal recognition of the non-traditional marriages the number of gay, group or polygamous marriage would not make up a majority of marriages.

Non-traditional marriages have always been in the minority. There is no reason to believe that the legal recognition of those non-traditional marriages would cause this to increase.

The legal recognition of gay or other non-traditional marriages would not equate to banning of traditional marriages. It would not require that traditional marriages be abandoned and nontraditional one be taken up. It would not require that Judeo-Christian clergy be required to recognize or perform non-traditional marriage.

Legal recognition of gay marriage would not erode the stability of the family.

Again supposition. There is no logical or even moral connection that can be made between two women or men getting married and any impact on total strangers who happen to live in a traditional marriage and procreate. The stability of the family is the responsibility of the adults in that family (whether it be a nuclear or extended family). It is the responsibility of the parents to instill morals in their children. Given the oppositions argument, the mere legal recognition and practice of gay marriage would have to overcome the parents’ own beliefs and standards.

It would not dilute the meaning of marriage.

The opposition’s position is supposition born of moral indignation. The opposition’s definition of marriage is purposely restricted to a narrow one. The opposition’s definition is based on biblical scripture and ignores the polygamists marriage practices reflected in the Old Testament and of marriage practices around the world. This is understandable given their belief system but not reality as shown by history.

“Equal protection—the Constitutional standard that will likely allow gay marriage—is a very blunt weapon.”

I am not certain of your point here. My position on Equal Protection vis-a-vis Gay Marriage would be this:

Any challenge by the government to gay marriage would require that it meet the most liberal of the Equal Protection tests. (Legitimate state interest vs. compelling state interest)

From a center to slightly left of center heterosexual male:

Legalizing gay marriage will have no effect on the institution of civil marriage.

In the best sense it can only be good for society, offering legitimacy to committed relationships. Stable loving relationships should be encouraged.

I think most objections come from those extreme examples of “deviant” behavior that is not a part of stable loving, committed, monogamous relationships. While concentrating on the most bizarre homosexual behavior, gay marriage opponents almost universally ignore deviant and bizarre heterosexual behavior which is no less harmful to “traditional values.”

Marriage, as an institution is in more danger of destruction by its current heterosexual participants than it is from gays who want to have their lifetime love commitments recognized.

The framing of the entire issue disturbs me (even using the term ‘disturb’ no doubt leaves me open for vituperation.) This not about ‘allowing’ homosexuals to marry. Marriage is legally, and socially defined as one man and one woman. What gay-marriage advocates want is a redifinition of the term. This is fundamentally not the same thing. Sure you can put wings on a greyhound; drive it off a cliff and you may gain enough velocity to generate lift. But don’t try to call it an airplane.

Point 3

“Gay marriage is highly unlikely to create more monogamy among male homosexuals, therefore one of the stated reasons for legalizing gay marriage doesn’t hold up. On the contrary, gay marriage is likely to lead to less monogamy and more divorce and ever more permutations of the family until both it and marriage become meaningless concepts. The threat of AIDS doesn’t seem to bolster gay monogamy—why will marriage?”

This argument arises from a point I made in a comment. I did not fully explain my argument because I got in a hurry. The point I was making was a comparison between your position that; gay marriage threatens traditional marriage or gay marriage would influence traditional marriage (negatively) and that gay marriage could influence the gay community to be more monogamous overall. More succinctly, if negative influence is possible external to gay marriage then would you concede that a positive influence was possible internal to the gay movement. Both of those points are suppositions and you might as flip a coin or wait and see if either happens.

“On the contrary, gay marriage is likely to lead to less monogamy and more divorce and ever more permutations of the family until both it and marriage become meaningless concepts.

“gay marriage is likely to lead to less monogamy”. . . so, gays will not be more monogamous but legal recognition of gay marriage will lead heterosexuals to more promiscuity and divorce.

(crickets chirping) ????????????

Again, this is the road from Tulsa to San Francisco metaphor. Where is the connection?

Is the opposition really arguing that gay marriage would release some social virus of permissiveness?

“Oh, I see that gays can get married now.

“Wow, you know, the world is just a free for all now.” (Don’t Psychiatrists call this transference?)

“Don’t have go to church anymore, Don’t have to listen to my parents, Heterosexuality has been suspended, Dogs and cats living together, You know I just feel that I should not have to breathe anymore.”

Perhaps, this is the canard that homosexuality is behavior, not genetic. My argument on this is just common sense. I did not wake up one morning in my pubescence and decide to be heterosexual. I will believe that homosexuality is just behavior the day the leaders of the religious right publish there teenage diaries full of entries (a heart-felt speech would do as well) about their horrific struggle resisting their attraction to people of the same sex.

It would be nice if the opposition would throw me a bone here. How do we get from Tulsa to San Francisco?

I’m opposed to marriage straight across the board. It’s an out-dated concept, IMO. I and friends I have discussed the topic with come to the conclusion that it can potentially destroy an otherwise stable and loving relationship, but obviously that wouldn’t be the opinion of the All Powerful Majority upon whose sage advice and instruction we all rely. I prefer the concept of TriadTribes, but that’s only because of direct experience. The benefits of such an arrangement far outweighed any drawbacks.

Point 1. “Marriage is the cornerstone of an orderly society. Tinkering with it in ways that will redefine it is probably a bad idea.”

. . .cornerstone of an orderly society

Marriage is cornerstone of procreation, kinship, and family structure. Marriage is a social construct and institution that serves many purposes but creating an orderly society is not one of them. Family is the base building block for society. This statement leaves out such things little things as government, law, economics, religion, and the military. Those institutions have been present since humans all ran around in tribes and chased down animals to survive. Those institutions have carried out the duties of managing sex and violence for thousands of years. Those institutions have maintained a battle against chaos. Those institutions have molded and re-molded marriage.

Tinkering with it in ways that will redefine it. . .

Marriage is a universal social institution. It varies from culture to culture. Its legal, ritual and religious aspects have changed throughout history and within cultures. Marriage has always been redefined.

The opposition is more concerned with the version he holds near and dear.

The reasons for marriage have varied. There are arranged marriages (parents choose your mate). These marriages could be done merely for economic reasons (to combine two families wealth, to improve the position of another. i.e. dower). There were arranged marriages for political reasons. Princes and Princess married off for political alliances. These marriages were not romantic at least not the way we think of it today (two people love and make a commitment to each other). There were marriages that were required to be outside of a particular group to avoid inbreeding and perhaps to ease tensions between peoples or tribes. There were marriages where the wife moves in the with the husband’s family. There are secular marriages. The most well-known being the Vegas quickie marriage. There are marriages at sea, but this is probably not as common as television makes it out. There are marriages by the government officials. There are marriages with more than one wife, there are marriages with more than one husband and there are group marriages. Then there is the modern (but with a long tradition) Christian, stand before the clergy and say “I do” marriage. This is the form of marriage that is really at the heart of the issue. Not because it is the exclusive form of marriage throughout the world and time but because certain segments of our society believe it is exclusive. It is a given that at the heart of this belief is a strong moral sense and serious conservative streak.

The problem is that the belief does not alter reality.

Frankly, I reject the premise that the burden of proof rests on those who would like to allow gay marriage. The most important political ideal in this country is that all citizens have equality before the law. When some wild-eyed commie radical wants to violate that important conservative principle in order to prevent gay marriage, the burden of proof rests with them.

I suggest, Mark, that you’ve got things completely backwards here. The legal challenge to non-recognition of same-sex marriages has at its foundation US Supreme Court precedent finding a fundamental right to marriage. If such a fundamental right does exist — and your “cornerstone of an orderly society” verbiage at item 1 would have to recognize such a right — then the onus is on those who argue for limiting the scope of such a right to prove that the limitation is necessary.

To wit: You must prove that recognizing same-sex marriages will in fact be to the detriment of marriage. The “slippery slope” would be a good rational basis for policy argument absent marriage being a fundamental right. But you’ve got to do better than the “slippery slope”.

”…US Supreme Court precedent finding a fundamental right to marriage…”

Well yes if we were to deny a person the right to marriage because they are homosexual, or latina, or an athiest then yes this would be patently unfair and unconstitutiional discrimination. Telling the same person that they may only marry a member of the opposite sex may be discriminatory (in the broadest sense of the word), but not unfair and not unconstitutional (based on the current legal definition of marriage.)

In our society if you want to practice medicine we will not deny you a license because of your race, sexuality, religious orientation, et cetera, that would be unfair. But we will deny you a license if say, you don’t actually have a medical degree or the requisite training, and there is nothing unfair about that, because the requisite education and training is how we define the ability to practice a profession.

Sure, we can redefine marriage, just as we can redefine professional standards. But to say that such action carries no risks, that advocates of change need only cry ‘discrimination’ as their sole affirmative arguement, or that it is beholden on others to defend the status quo is simply wrong.

Point 2

“Gay marriage will definitely redefine the most ancient meaning of marriage as understood in a Western context—one man and one woman leaving their parents to create a new home on their own (new home not meaning new house, obviously, but a home distinct from either of their parents’ authority—and yes, having a parent live with married children for health reasons is perfectly okay. Hopefully we’re clear on this—if not, I’ll be happy to clarify.)”

“Gay marriage will definitely redefine the most ancient meaning of marriage as understood in a Western context. . .”

Let’s take a little look at the ancient meaning and not so ancient meaning of marriage.

The opposition is of course referring to the language in the Bible. Biblical commentators refer to man-woman monogamy until death as the ideal marriage since the Bible also recounts the polygamy of King Solomon and these passages, which speak for themselves.

Deuteronomy 21:15

“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,

16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.

17 “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

Deuteronomy 21:10

Female Captives when you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive,

11and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife,

12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.

13She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

14And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

In Ancient Greece, this little bit of rhetoric from Apollodorus, a mythographer of the 2nd Century B.C.

“Heteras we keep for pleasure, concubines for attending day-by-day to the body and wives for producing heirs, and for standing trusty guard on our household property.” James Davidson, Courtesans & Fishcakes (Great Britain 1997).

The ceremonies and laws attendant to marriage have changed throughout history. Whether in pursuit of the ideal or some more liberal version, the laws regarding marriage have produced ugly little bits of history such as victimizing children with bastardy laws and more recently anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Note that the Israeli’s recently revived this nasty practice by making it illegal for married Israeli-Arabs and Israeli-Jews to reside in Israel proper.

Below are some other examples of the history of marriage:

“The Fourth Lateran Council’s listing of marriage as a sacrament was an important step in a trend that had been gaining momentum in the previous century – demanding a church ceremony for legitimation of a marriage. In the year 1000 the majority of people in Christian Europe were not married in a church ceremony. Marriage involved Germanic-style cohabitation, frequently signified by the giving of a ring. By 1200 perhaps half of the people in Western Europe, particularly among the wealthier and more literate classes, were married by a priest. After the Fourth Lateran Council, sacramental marriage in church became the prescribed norm, although in 1500 there were still many peasants who were married by the simple rite of cohabitation. If the family involved had property, church marriage was a necessity in order to assure legitimacy of offspring and uncontested inheritance.” Norman F. Cantor, The Civilization of the Middle Ages (United States 1963, 1968, 1974, 1993).

In 1701 England Sir George Downing, then 15, had been married in an arranged marriage to a 15 year old girl. Sir George then left for four years and the couple had not consummated the marriage by mutual consent. The age of consent at that time was 14 for males and 12 for females. In 1715 he tried to get a bill of divorce and failed. Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (United States 1977, 1979).

The poor in England found getting divorced equally hard. They sometimes abandoned their spouses or practiced bigamy. A third alternative was to hold a wife sale. This unofficial folk divorce was carried out by putting your soon to be ex-wife in a halter and leading her to the market. There a sham auction was held to highest bidder. In actuality the high bidder was prearranged. Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (United States 1977, 1979).

ESP — Thank you for pointing that out. You’ve done wonders. The slippery slope argument in the case of gay marriage is all the more valid in light of the history of marriage. Polygamy as a historical sexual union is far, far more common than homosexuality. It is in fact probably more natural and more economically sound than monogamous unions. Why would we not allow it?

John

You are welcome, but I don’t know what for. Your point presupposes three things:

One, that the legal recognition of gay marriage will bring about some evil consequences that is somehow more serious or more prevalent than the current state of the world. You do this without explaining how this going to occur. We have not even step on the slippery slope yet.

Two, that the legal recognition of gay marriage will bring about a resurgence of polygamy or even polygamists activism. Do you really believe that the polygamist examples I listed would occur in our time? Do we take war captives? Do we have royalty in our society that find they have the privilege of having a harem like King Solomon?

The only discrete group of polygamists that I know of in this country is the Fundamentalist Mormons. Do you believe that the mainstream Mormon Church would take up polygamy for them or could without looking like utter hypocrites and destroying their credibility?

Three, that polygamist unions are presently more economically sound. I believe that ancient polygamy was accepted because of social or economic structure, (having a ruling class that could afford to have multiple wives, or needing a large family to help in surviving in a rural and non-technological world. Don’t think you could make that argument today, seeing how it is difficult enough for nuclear or extended families to manage.

There is no social institution that man can not abuse, but to carry that argument to its logical conclusion would mean to ban all forms of marriage.

Point 4

“Gay marriage is about more than just “dignity” and “fairness.” It is about many other things, from economic benefits and legal status to being an angle of attack against institutions that gays and many radicals have long held in contempt—the family, faith, society. Ulterior motives account for much, if not most, of the back-channel support for gay marriage and much of the overt support as well.”

Gay marriage is about more than just “dignity” and “fairness.” It is about many other things, from economic benefits and legal status”.

Up to this point in your statement, I have no reason to argue to the contrary. I believe that there are some in Gay community who see the gay marriage as a step toward our culture treating them with dignity and fairness. I also would say that there are homosexuals that would pursue marriage for whatever economic or legal benefits the government allowed.

On the hand, there are heterosexuals that have gotten married merely for the economic benefits and legal status.

I also would say that it is fair that there are gays that hate heterosexuals just as some heterosexuals hate them. It does not follow however that the “haters” are in any position of power within the gay movement or that they are radicals that hold faith, family and society in contempt. Again, the opposition has fallen into using generalizations, and accusations of conspiracy.

Just because moral relativism is seeking to destroy the sanctity of marriage by removing the responsibility a person has to keep a commitment they made if they are not “happy” with their marriage doesn’t justify destroying it even further via moral relativism.

Some of us here seem to still be missing the point of the opposition to gay “marriage.”

Sex between two consenting adults who are performing sexual acts which are not harmful, or publicly displayed is PRIVATE MATTER.

Legal marriage between man and woman in which the State acknowledges both parties’ declaration of an oath to love, honor, and cherish each other for the rest of their lives is a PUBLIC MATTER.

Why? Because “just” having sex does not award any benefits from the State whereas marriage does.

How is this fair? In order for society to award benefits there is a cost. Therefore it is wise for society to only invest these costly benefits to those who can repay society.

Throughout the history of both western civilization as well as eastern civilization, marriage has been used as a method to encourage those who would copulate thus running the “risk” of having children to remain together in effort to raise the “future of their society.”

There is a purpose for marriage: That is to discourage those who would procreate from not fulfilling their responsibilities as parents.

Think about it - if marriage has nothing to do with producing, rearing, and raising children in a manner that benefits society - why should any government recognize marriage to begin with? There are much less complicated and costly ways to profess your love for someone without exacting such a cost to society.

If you really think that those who desire to retain the true definition of marriage as a union between man and woman do so strictly for moral, religious, or political reasons, you have NO understanding of the puropose marriage serves TO SOCIETY!

Whether it is local, state, or federal - the issue here is whether government will recognize these “marriages” as valid, thus granting the government-sponsored “benefit package” associated with marriage to those who are legally joined.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether we believe someone can take a vow of fidelity to anyone they wish. (I remember declaring my “blood brother” when I was a kid. — SAME FRIGGING THING!!!)

This has everything to do with whether the government will recognize that vow as one that is of benefit to and for society as a whole so that to repay the “benefit package” awarded - i.e. marriage.

Remember sex and marriage are two separate things - you can have sex with whomever you chose as long as it is not harmful, in private, and out of my sight, and out of my kid’s sight.

Now because I partly pay for the “benefits package” that is granted with marriage - you cannot marry whomever you want! I want payback! Show me the kids that will continue my society’s properity in the future! Gays can’t give us that. Almost all male-female couples can.

I ask of those promoting this OXYMORON that is “gay marriage”:

Of what further benefit is it to society for us to invest more resources to pay for these added benefits of legal marriage to gays?

What does the gay couple contibute more of to society by being married - as opposed to by just being a “couple” - that will constitute more cost to society?

I don’t know Chet.

Why don’t you ask Rush Limbaugh. He is a serial monogamist who has not had any children. He might feel he is not paying his dues by not having children. (sarcasm)

Why don’t you have the blog owner ask the rest of the heterosexual couples who can’t or don’t have children if they feel they are more of a burden to society as married couples as opposed to just a couple.

Next, What century are you living in? Do you really believe that the prosperity of modern society is driven by the number of children we have? That argument would fly in an agraian and non-technological society, (say in Europe after the Black Death) but not in a world that is as transient (on a international basis) as it is. Being a productive citizen is participating in the free market; working a job, making money, paying taxes, and buying things. Your value and mine is primarily as a consumer not as breeding stock. In other words being a good capitalist.

Try again.

If not to serve the purpose of encouraging those who would copulate thus running the “risk” of having children to remain together in effort to raise the “future of their society” - then what legitimate reason is there for the state to recognize marriage vows at all?

You can form your own church or other institution that will marry homosexuals and provide the vows and ceremony that you so desire.

There is absolutely NO need to redefine legal marriage, if only to serve the purpose of recognizing that “Donald loves John” or “Suzie loves Jane.”

No benefit to society. No thanks.

Your move.

“If not to serve the purpose of encouraging those who would copulate thus running the “risk” of having children to remain together in effort to raise the “future of their society” - then what legitimate reason is there for the state to recognize marriage vows at all? You can form your own church or other institution that will marry homosexuals and provide the vows and ceremony that you so desire.”

Two points, bastardy (I am not politically correct) laws were not passed to keep fornicators together in an effort to raise the future of their society. They were passed to protect legitimized families money and property at the expense of an innocent child or children. This protection was provided in spite of the weakness of the bastard’s parents. I guess those bastard children were not really a part of the future of the society.

This is an example that marriage is defined, redefined and so are its attendant ceremonies and legal aspects to suit the society. Marriage is not as simple as “its about children”. Legitimate reasons to recognize marriage vows extend beyond your narrow vision of marriage. You use the same ploy that the Blog owner does. He is using a narrowly defined and unrealistic definition of marriage based on biblical passages. You use the same ploy just based on utilitarian arguments.

Your church argument is specious. No matter whether you stand before a member of the clergy, a Vegas mail-order preacher or a judge for a wedding ceremony you need a license. Thus, legal recognition is necessary.

“There is absolutely NO need to redefine legal marriage, if only to serve the purpose of recognizing that “Donald loves John” or “Suzie loves Jane.” No benefit to society. No thanks. Your move.”

Chet, are you really just a strict cost and benefits (utilitarian) kind of guy or are you a conservative itching to say, “Gays are an abomination before God”, but trying a different argument.

I ask because society does not do things like redefining marriage on a strictly cost and benefits method. Society does do things for noble reasons and ignoble reasons that they like to put forward as costs and benefits.

Anti-miscegenation laws had a “benefit”, (as far as its proponents were concerned) and it did not matter that the “benefits” were based on hatred and bigotry. Anti-miscegenation laws punished white men for having sex with black women, and priests for marrying interracial couples. Children of mixed blood who were produced as a result of the miscegenation were not protected anymore than white bastards.

Benefit is whatever society determines it is. Reasonable people may disagree. Bigots may disagree, as in the case when anti-miscegenation laws were repealed. There are reasonable people and bigots in the anti-gay marriage camp and they will disagree.

If nothing else legal recognition of gay marriage would (if it ever happens) give those gays who choose to take advantage of it, the same rights, benefits, detriments, and problems to companionate marriage that heterosexuals without children enjoy.

Back at ya.

” No matter whether you stand before a member of the clergy, a Vegas mail-order preacher or a judge for a wedding ceremony you need a license. Thus, legal recognition is necessary.”

Wrong. The license is only necessary if you wish your union to be recognized by the state. Any preacher, priest, or clergyman will tell you that GOD NEEDS NO LICENSE to marry whomever He wishes.

“Chet, are you really just a strict cost and benefits (utilitarian) kind of guy or are you a conservative itching to say, “Gays are an abomination before God”, but trying a different argument.”

No, I’m just a guy who has a pretty good understanding of the PURPOSE that legal marriage serves to society, as obviously you do not. You chose to ignore the actual implications of changing that definition to fit your purely political and selfish needs. You argue that what gays do in their bedroom should not concern me and I should mind my own business (i.e. it is only a PRIVATE concern) - but then turn around and say that I need to recognize their union and pay for a package of benefits that are granted to REAL marriages between a man and a woman (i.e. now it is a PUBLIC concern). Are YOU just a simple moral-relativist, or just your everyday hypocrite?

Your anti-miscegenation arguement is WEAK at best. What term did these laws redefine? Last time I checked, “miscegenation” still means 1. The interbreeding of different races or of persons of different racial backgrounds. 2. Cohabitation, sexual relations, or marriage involving persons of different races. 3. A mixture or hybridization.

And please refrain from immature name-calling. This argument has nothing to do with bigotry or anti-gay anything. You can be as gay as a you want, as far as I’m concerned. Whether or not it is “an abomination before God” is between you and your God (if you believe in one). Just don’t ask me to pay for your declaration of your love to your gay partner when I will not see any benefit to my or my childrens’ future.

“If nothing else legal recognition of gay marriage would (if it ever happens) give those gays who choose to take advantage of it, the same rights, benefits, detriments, and problems to companionate marriage that heterosexuals without children enjoy.”

Vinny in Insignificant Thoughts said this: “if you want the benefits of being married, fight for them, but don’t try to change the definition of marriage to get everything. You want social security? Fight for it. Insurance? Fight for it. But don’t fight for marriage, and then say, ‘Okay, we’re married… Where’s our take now?’”

All that you claim is being requested by the gay community can be obtained via means other than redefining legal marriage and pontentially destroying its function to society.

Your serve.

This is such a ridiculous argument. It’s really a religious proxy fight. As an atheist, I don’t give a rat’s ass who marries whom for what reason. Marriage should not be a vehicle for social engineering; it has no “purpose” beyond the purpose ascribed to it by each married person. If I want to marry my blowup doll, I should be able to. In a pluralistic, secular society, religious concerns should not even enter into the discussion. Keep your superstition to yourself.

I have yet to see any persuasive argument at all showing how allowing gay people to marry would affect other, existing marriages. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay person.

Some people need to let go of their malignant narcissistic view of the world and realize that there is a BIGGER picture out there.

If you truly believe that bastardizing the definition of marriage does not affect society in a negative way then you truly have not grasped the concept of civilation.

I have yet to see any persuasive argument at all showing how allowing gay people to marry would affect other, existing marriages.

I guess this all depends on what you mean by “allowing gay people to marry.”

If you mean allowing someone to take a vow to another person. I say fine, do it all you want! Swear on your mother’s grave that you will be faithful to that special person, animal, or thing in your life. I could care less!

But if you mean the government recognizing that vow, union, or commitment as MARRIAGE, thus granting the same benefits package that truly MARRIED citizens receive at the cost of the taxpayer then I say H&LL NO!!!

How’s that for a persuasive arguement?

Why should any married couple, straight, gay, or try-sexual (they’ll try anything) receive any kind of “benefit”, as you put it, from the government? The government has no business encouraging or discouraging a private choice made by citizens for private reasons.

And what exactly should this “benefits package” be? A basket that shows up on your doorstep when you get back from your honeymoon with Focus on the Family propaganda, some K-Y, and a note from the Pope reminding you that the purpose of marriage is procreation? It’s absurd. Should the government next come up with some fiscal disincentive for the wearing of mullets? How about a tax surcharge? After all, mullets hurt all of us, not just the unfortunate rednecks sporting them. Oh, wait, no they don’t. And neither does gay marriage hurt you, unless you are so disturbed by the thought that you lay awake at night mentally composing your next angry letter to Andrew Sullivan.

“Some people need to let go of their malignant narcissistic view of the world and realize that there is a BIGGER picture out there.” As David Spade might say, it’s called projection. Look into it.

Chet, your argument about the benefit to society (what are your kids doing for me) is so ridiculously selfish, you could only be a libertarian, but then you argue against freedom (for pillow-biters) and leave me confused.

This ‘sanctity of marriage’ is a bunch of baloo, to put it obtusely. With 50% of these Perfect, Love, Good for All, God-Blessed marriages ending in divorce, the sanctity of marriage was marred some time ago. Which is not to say that marring it further is o.k., only that in it’s current social iteration it is a farce to call marriage, as a rule, santified.

Not that I feel terribly strongly about this (after all, I came from a gay union, albeit from an in-the-closet-trying-to-play-it-straight one), but the argument isn’t about God’s recognition (or lack thereof, which isn’t a problem since you can make up a new one when needed) but the recognition of personal rights that are guaranteed to legal partners and not to ‘fuck buddies’.

These legal rights that come from such a untion should be afforded to all citizens. You can call it smegificinallie if you want, as long the function in socieity is the same, who cares. It’s the word ‘marriage’ that gets the fundies panties all in a bunch.

A simple allegory goes like this. If I’m gay, and about to die (but don’t know it, accident), and my family hates me but my partner knows exactly how I want my stuff to be passed out, what should I do?

In this fictional story I have a partner who I’ve been with for about 10 years, and a family I haven’t seen in 20. After my fictional death, all my posthumous wishes are defaulted to those bastards that wouldn’t accept me, and in fact wish I was never born.

Seems to be a slight disconnect for someone who is so concerned about the efficiencies of civil society that they base an objection to gay marriage on the cost to them personally. mind boggles

And one final one for Chet, who is such a trooper for carrying such a heavy burden paying out of his own pocket for all these marriages (1/2 of which fail), should gay people get a tax break because of their inability to participant in this highly lucrative marriage market?

Also, to the owner of the blog, I’m surprised anyone picked up on your challenge, as you asked them to prove a negative. Let me know if anyone ever figures out how to do that.

Brett:

And what exactly should this “benefits package” be?

Let’s see… What benefits do married couples receive from society just for the fact that they are married? 1. Social Security benefits automatically get assigned to the spouse if one dies. 2. Half of the property and assets acquired during the union get assigned to each spouse. 3. Life insurance beneficiary benefits are automatically assined to the spouse in the event of death. 4. Tax filing status of “Married filing jointly” which is allocated a separate tax bracket. Etc, etc, etc.

And why, you ask, are these benefits granted to MARRIED couples?

Is it only to benefit these adults with monetary rewards? NO!

Is there possibly another reason that only male-female married couples recieve these benefits? OF COURSE!

The key word here is… (pay attention now)…

C H I L D R E N ! ! !

And only who, may I ask, is capable of the trifecta of PRODUCING, REARING, AND RAISING children? Hint: Not gay couples.

Now here’s the whammy: You, too, through the legal or political system have the ability to obtain these benefits separately.

if you want the benefits of being married, fight for them, but don’t try to change the definition of marriage to get everything. You want social security? Fight for it. Insurance? Fight for it. But don’t fight for marriage, and then say, ‘Okay, we’re married… Where’s our take now?’”

Now as far as your David Spade quote, here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of projection:

pro·jec·tion n. The act of projecting or the condition of being projected. A thing or part that extends outward beyond a prevailing line or surface: spiky projections on top of a fence; a projection of land along the coast. A plan for an anticipated course of action: “facilities [that] are vital to the projection of U.S. force… in the Pacific” (Alan D. Romberg). A prediction or an estimate of something in the future, based on present data or trends.

The process of projecting a filmed image onto a screen or other viewing surface. An image so projected. Mathematics. The image of a geometric figure reproduced on a line, plane, or surface. A system of intersecting lines, such as the grid of a map, on which part or all of the globe or another spherical surface is represented as a plane surface. Psychology. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projectionof clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff). The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

(Emphasis mine).

;)

Wah - Your turn.

Chet, your argument about the benefit to society (what are your kids doing for me) is so ridiculously selfish

Seems to be a slight disconnect for someone who is so concerned about the efficiencies of civil society that they base an objection to gay marriage on the cost to them personally

Selfish? I think you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself, mate.

Who is the one who is more than willing to sacrifice the health and prosperity of our children in order to satisfy a small group of people’s desire to have their “vow” of fidelity recognized by the government as “marriage.”

I do have society’s best interest in mind - the entire shibang! My family’s, yours, and everybody else’s. Can you say the same?

A means created by society to discourage those who would procreate (man and woman) from not fulfilling their responsibilities as parents

Simply a means to recognize one’s vow of fidelity to another person with no further purpose to society besides

Have you taken the effects on society into consideration? From your comments, I would assess - Probably not.

So tell us, Wah, who is the selfish one now?

These legal rights that come from such a untion [sic] should be afforded to all citizens.

Fine. Fight for them individually. Just don’t change the definition of marriage and come back claiming that now that you’re “married” you get the whole package. — Not what the legal benefits are for, Bud.

You can call it smegificinallie if you want, as long the function in socieity is the same, who cares. It’s the word ‘marriage’ that gets the fundies panties all in a bunch.

I think you just hit the nail on the head, Wah!

Call it whatever the H&LL you want - but don’t try to tell me that this is “marriage.”

What the in the world are “fundies?”

Marriage is marriage - a union between man and woman created by society to ensure the health and prosperity of its children and, thus, society itself.

;)

From Chet’s Comment

Let’s just focus on the nut of this problem.

Cause = redefining legal marriage

Effect = pontentially destroying its function to society.

Can anyone on the anti gay marriage side of this issue tell me how we get from the stated cause to stated effect?

ESP -

Did you not read Brian’s last post on this topic?

How about Maggie Gallagher’s article?

Or even Dennis Prager’s articlethat Kathy mentioned?

If you haven’t been satisfied with my humble explanation of our respective positions on this critical issue, there is plenty of reading for your education.

Let me know if more is needed.

;)

By the way, I found this pretty interesting!

(From a site run by a former Clinton - the proclaimed “gay rights” hero - advisor nonetheless!)

;)

Marriage came under assault decades ago with the introduction and promotion of quicker, easier divorce. The assumption and spin at that time was that it would be better for everybody concerned if bad marriages were dissolved instead of forcing the majority to make do with a less than optimal situation.

Today we know that’s a crock. It isn’t better in general but the worst victims are the ones who have the least culpability and no say at all in the dissolution, the children. One of my best friends is the product of a busted marriage and as far as I’ve ever figured out he hasn’t had anybody else in his family to look to for a model of a successful marriage (his maternal family is all he has access to and his grandmother divorced as well). The terrifying fact is that he actually looks to me as inspiration for how to act in a marriage. This is a tremendous and awe inspiring burden that occurs every day of the week all over the world but most of the time the beneficiaries don’t tell their role models, they just watch, observe, and imitate.

The same process occurs with regards to homosexual marriage. Don’t kid yourself that this won’t happen. It’s a disgrace to think that collective societal institutions like marriage are primarily about individual cases. They are not. the benefits are collective, cumulative, and largely unquantified by people. This lack of measurement of ancient, functional heuristics is why conservatives always seem to be taken aback and in disarray in the initial assaults on society. They’ve always got a lot of back filling and justifying to do because actually measuring and proving that old institutions have merit is something that is passed over for efficiency reasons by most people.

No doubt my friend’s mother and grandmother had good reasons to leave their men but I doubt they’ve ever fully understood the damage that they did to him and the psychic suffering that might get repaired in his children but more likely his grandchildren (if his marriage survives, children of divorce tend to have poorer prospects at successful marriages).

Do I want my children to have to deal with friends hurt by the effect of the end of traditional marriage? No. People, we’re not at tabula rasa here. We already have a history of liberal attempts at reform and they follow a pattern that doesn’t vary much. They promise great benefits which do not materialize at temporary costs which end up much bigger and never end and unexpected consequences always crop up, they’re always negative, and it’s always very hard to reverse course even when the negatives heavily outweigh the positives of the original reform.

I can’t believe noone has pointed this out.

If homosexual couples could have children, would you(Chet) be ok with gay marriage?

Straight couple: - sex - adoption - surrogate mother - sperm bank - child of previous marriage

Gay couple: - adoption - surrogate mother - sperm bank (if lesbians) - child of previous marriage

Chet, if your argument hinges on the ability of gay couples to have/raise children then you lost before you even started.

- adoption - surrogate mother - sperm bank (if lesbians) - child of previous marriage

Now, how many of these absolutely keep both biological parents of the child in his/her life?

NONE - Argument won.

;)

You’re moving the goalposts Chet. First you say that marriage is about helping couples raise children. You state that you oppose gay marriage because homosexual couples can’t raise children. Guess what Chet, you’re wrong. Homosexuals can produce and raise children the exact same way many heterosexuals do.

Now that you’ve been shown to be wrong, you’re talking about biological parents. If you want to protect biological parentage, we’ve already crossed that bridge and burned it to the ground.

Would you deny marriage to couple who can’t or choose not to have children? Of course you wouldn’t.

Would you deny marriage to homosexuals who intend on having children, or who already do? Of course you would.

I wonder why that is. The fact that you would deny marriage to homosexual couples who adopt children speaks volumes. You are perfectly willing to give orphans the shaft if it means stopping gay marriage.

Welcome to the 21st century Chet. Parenting is not about sperm and eggs. It is about bonds of love.

You would deny the benefits of marriage to a couple raising children? What is it about the biology that is so important to you?

Exactly what principle do you think you’re defending here?

Would you deny marriage to homosexuals who intend on having children, or who already do?

You would deny the benefits of marriage to a couple raising children?

To suggest that gays and religious gays would like to partake in the benefits of marriage and that the current marriage laws forbid that, is a lie. Gays and lesbians are free to marry, but they must marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not discriminated against because they are not prohibited from getting married, just on the gender of their partner. That may seem a circular argument, but we have all sorts of limitations on suitable marriage partners, as well as restricting it to ONE partner: you cannot marry a close relative, an animal, or a child, for example.

if you want the benefits of being married, fight for them, but don’t try to change the definition of marriage to get everything. You want social security? Fight for it. Insurance? Fight for it. But don’t fight for marriage, and then say, ‘Okay, we’re married… Where’s our take now?’

These benefits of legal recognition should be fought for outside the realms of the term marriage. Don’t hijack marriage to mean something that it most definitely does NOT!

Parenting is not about sperm and eggs. It is about bonds of love.

Wrong. It is about both. It takes both. Without both you bring in many factors that in most cases makes life more complicated for the victims of the errosion of marriage and its definition in family - CHILDREN

If you, as a gay couple, have decided to take responsibility of raising a child, I commend you on your effort, and I don’t merely assume that you’ll do a poor job at it. But you should also know that it is expected that by bringing a child into your “alternative lifestyle” you also introduce many issues that usually prove to be very stressful, humiliating, difficult, confusing, and, in the long run, potenially damaging to the health and prosperity of the child. It’s hard enough being a child without introducing these other factors for them to deal with. It’s hard enough raising the children of society to be productive people who would someday become parents themselves and ensure a prosperous society for their children without introducing more potential “bumps in the road” that makes it all the more difficult.

This is the point. It’s not about denying adults anything. It’s about what granting something to these adults will deny the CHILDREN who will most definitely be affected by it.

;)

Your arguments, paraphrased:

#1 - gays aren’t being discriminated against, they can marry the opposite sex and have babies too

This is not a serious argument.

You are implying that you would be ok with a sham marriage between a homosexual and a heterosexual. You are not being serious. You cannot reconcile this proposed sham marriage with your concern for children with chaotic families. Denying homosexuals legal recognition of their relationships is transparently homophobic. You are fooling noone but perhaps yourself.

#2 - we’ll let gay couples can get all the benefits of marriage they want, they just can’t call it “marriage”

This is not a serious argument.

Would you be ok with civil unions that are identical to heterosexual marriages in every way except the title (inheritance, custody of children, insurance and social security benefits, tax laws, etc…)? If this really is your position, are you campaigning for civil unions in order to make gay marriage unnecessary? I suspect not; you are not concerned with the legal rights of gay couples. I suspect the benefits of marriage you are willing to grant homosexual couples does not include the right to adopt. You are not being serious. However, you are being transparently homophobic.

#3 - children not raised by both biological parents have a hard time in life

This is not a serious argument.

First, the stigma of homosexuality does not lie with them, it lies with those who hate them. I could easily make the same argument against interracial marriage, as the mixed race children would be mistreated by racists. Are you against interracial marriages on the grounds that the children will suffer from racism? Are you against obese parents (or any other group subject to ridicule and discrimination) having children? I suspect not. You are not being serious. You are being transparently homophobic.

Second, you are not really concerned with the biological parentage of the children. How do you feel about heterosexual couples adopting children? How do you feel about heterosexual couples bearing children with invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, egg donors, or any other assistive reproductive technology?

We don’t see protesting against any of these methods of having children when only heterosexuals are involved, only homosexuals. We can only conclude that it is homosexuality that you are against, and not assistive reproductive technology or adoption. You are not being serious. You are being transparently homophobic.

Your claim that marriage is solely about biological parentage is bizzare. My sister and her husband choose to never have children. Is their marriage unsatisfactory to you? My father and stepmother both have children from previous marriages and they do not have children together; my brother and I are not biologically related to either of our sisters. Is my family not a real family? Does my father’s marriage not pass your test?

Is my family a sham because my brother and I don’t have one of my stepmother’s X chromosomes. Is my family a sham because my sisters don’t have an X from my father? Is my family a sham because my brother-in-law doesn’t have children with my sister? Is my family a sham because my brother CAN’T have children with his wife? Is my family a sham because I am not biologically related to my sisters, or to the mother that raised me?

You cannot deny homosexual families without denying my own. You also cannot without denying my girlfriend’s family, who was adopted into hers. Is her family a sham because she is not biologically related to either of the only parents she has ever known?

When you attack families with homosexual parents, you attack many more families than just those.

I think I know what really motivates you. You don’t want children to be raised by homosexuals. Chet, you simply don’t have a choice in this matter. Denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry will not stop them from raising children. Families with homosexual parents already exist. Homosexual couples can have children with any of the methods I’ve already covered. Marriage rights will only serve to strengthen these already existing families. Opposing gay marriage is just being petty and serves no purpose other than to harm homosexual couples and harm their children.

You live in an imaginary world where all families consist of children and both their biological parents. This is not the world we live in. The world we live in has families with adopted children. The world we live in has families with stepparents. The world we live in includes modern medicine and assistive reproductive technologies. The world we live in has families where the parents are a homosexual couple.

You cannot just close your eyes and pretend they don’t exist. You cannot just deny gay marriage and pretend that gay parents will be prevented from coming into being. They are already here. You only campaign to weaken them, to the detriment of the children involved.

You claim to have the best interests of children of homosexuals in your heart, but you do not. What you desire will not help these children, it will only harm them.

Shame on you.

Steve:

You are implying that you would be ok with a sham marriage between a homosexual and a heterosexual.

I never implied this. I merely stated that homosexuals are not being denied anything. It’s my belief that homosexuals choose to be gay. Just as heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual. Just as one chooses to be celibate. People choose whom they have sex with. Physical attractions may be independent of choice, but physical actions are not. People choose whom they keep a relationship with, be that of friends or lovers. People choose whom they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

Now with choice always come consequences. If one chooses to live a celibate life, their natural desires as human creatures to have sex will go unsatisfied. If one chooses to act out heterosexual desires, they run the “risk” of producing children. If one chooses to act out homosexual desires, they cannot get married in most of the United States.

Argument still sounds pretty valid to me.

Denying homosexuals legal recognition of their relationships is transparently homophobic

Call me all the names you want, bigot (figure that one out - HA!). This doesn’t change the fact that though you may not want to face it, life is full of choices, and these choices all bear consequences. Deal with it!

By the way - let me recommend some good reading from Insignificant Thoughts.

Would you be ok with civil unions that are identical to heterosexual marriages in every way except the title (inheritance, custody of children, insurance and social security benefits, tax laws, etc…)?

Sure! Just don’t expect me to recognize that as marriage because its NOT. By the way, custody of children is not granted simply because one of the parents gets married - not part of the benefits package of marriage, sorry. (Nice try, though!) ;)

if you want the benefits of being married, fight for them, but don’t try to change the definition of marriage to get everything. You want social security? Fight for it. Insurance? Fight for it. But don’t fight for marriage, and then say, ‘Okay, we’re married… Where’s our take now?’

You really need to get “hooked on phonics,” Steve. Your reading comprehension is 3rd grade at best.

If this really is your position, are you campaigning for civil unions in order to make gay marriage unnecessary? I suspect not; you are not concerned with the legal rights of gay couples.

Again, your assumptions are dead wrong!

I’m not campaigning for any kind of civil union. It is you who is campaigning for some recognition by the government of homosexual vows of fidelity. Just don’t call any type of homosexual union marriage.

I suspect the benefits of marriage you are willing to grant homosexual couples does not include the right to adopt.

Once again, you’re assuming and making an ass of yourself. This is a completely separate topic. But since we’re on it, I don’t think there really is anything wrong with homosexuals adopting children, as long as the biological parents of that child, if able, did not object to it when giving the child up to adoption. People have a right to believe what they want on this matter - its still up for debate.

Right to adopt has absolutely nothing to do with marriage benefits. As with child custody, getting married doesn’t automatically qualify you for adoption. Many other factors are involved.

children not raised by both biological parents have a hard time in life

No, I didn’t say that. But you should acknowledge the fact that these children’s lives are much more complicated. They have more questions about their identity than children who live with both biological mom and dad. They are more likely to have issues with that identity as those questions arise, especially during adolescence.

the stigma of homosexuality does not lie with them, it lies with those who hate them. I could easily make the same argument against interracial marriage, as the mixed race children would be mistreated by racists.

No, as stated earlier, homosexuality is, for the most part, a choice. Interracial marriage is also a choice. The stigma lies on both those who hate, and those who are naive to think that such hate does not exist. Ignorance is a constant in this world that is not eliminated or even reduced by allowing homosexual unions to be part of the marriage definition.

How do you feel about heterosexual couples adopting children? How do you feel about heterosexual couples bearing children with invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, egg donors, or any other assistive reproductive technology?

I feel fine. There is nothing wrong with these options - as long as you know what complications and complexities it will bring to that child’s life that you, as the parent, will have to guide them through. As a parent, myself, I realize how difficult it already is to raise a child, let alone raising one who will have issues with his/her identity.

We don’t see protesting against any of these methods of having children when only heterosexuals are involved, only homosexuals.

What planet do you live on? See Catholic Church.

Your claim that marriage is solely about biological parentage is bizzare.

No it’s not (if you take the time and effort to actually read and understand, my friend). Your examples within your own family are truly amusing. But these are clearly the exceptions, not the rule. Your family is not (necessarilly) a “sham.”

But let me ask you this: (Assuming your biological parents divorced) Can you honestly say that when you were a child you never questioned why your biological parents didn’t stay together to raise you together? Can your siblings?

If society were to once again take marriage vows seriously, would the same number of kids have to ask these questions?

Now add the homosexual “marriage” issue into the equation. How does this motivate those in our society to take marriage vows seriously - as long as they both shall live?

You cannot deny homosexual families without denying my own. You also cannot without denying my girlfriend’s family, who was adopted into hers.

No one said anything about denying homosexual families, bud. I just deny that homosexual vows of fidelity are “marriage.” — Again, READING COMPREHENSION.

I think I know what really motivates you.

No, you obviously DO NOT!

You claim to have the best interests of children of homosexuals in your heart, but you do not. What you desire will not help these children, it will only harm them.

I claim to have the best interest of ALL CHILDREN. Not just children of homosexuals, you illiterate fool!

Let me get this straight, by expecting people to hold up to their marriage vow, this will harm children? What a malignant narcissist you are!

SHAME ON YOU!

Here ya go, Steve… 1-800-ABCDEFG

Soon, you can read too - All by yourself!!!

;)

Chet, you keep sidestepping an important question.

How do you feel about childless heterosexual married couples? If people can’t or won’t have children, should they be allowed to get married?

This is what breaks your argument. You have two possible answers:

#1 - Sure, it’s ok. You don’t need children to be married. Therefore my position against gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with children and my argument is a cover for my homophobia.

#2 - Nope, you can’t get married unless you’re having kids. I’m batsh*t crazy.

I answered that question in the other gay marriage post, “Gay Marriage and the Influence of One Marriage on All.”

Ok, headed on over to the latest gay marriage thread…