[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think you need to prove that marriage is solely affirmative action, establish the parameters of said affirmative action and show that it is effective for that purpose and could not reasonably be expanded or stop basing arguments off such a specious claim.

There's many reasons to "marry" (using a broad definition of the uniting of two or more people together creating long-term bonds), most of which are already available to homosexuals. What I said was that the government acknowledgment and special status given to marriage is an affirmative action. One for which there is a vast societal interest, that does not exist in regards to same-sex unions.

As far as it's effectiveness goes, there's a simple test. While maybe it's not AS effective as it once was, people often times STILL DO get married due to an impending addition to their household. There's still a societal construct out there that the "right thing" to do when you have children STILL is to get married.

I do understand that over the last 40 years or so, with constant attacks from the left, this affirmative action has lost SOME of it's power. I just don't think we should allow the left to further hurt this interest to our society by changing the definition so there is no longer ANY government acknowledgement or impetus for humans who create new life to manage the upbringing of that life in a stable mother/father/child setting.

When you change it from a societal norm expected due to the likely biological creation of a family to simply a government acknowledgement of emotion, you have decided that the compelling societal interest that has always existed won't be recognized and decrease it's importance.

You don't have to take my word for it. Over the past 40 years as the left has tried to destroy marriage, children with only a mom or dad has skyrocketed, with those who are victimized by this statistically end up disadvantaged and more likely to start a life of crime. The more the left turns "marriage" into something people do just for fun to get a certificate and express their emotions, the more it becomes an unnecessary crutch that hampers personal freedom and therefore it's not important to keep as something that is respected.

...and whether they understand it or not, those who want to redefine marriage will end up doing just that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's many reasons to "marry" (using a broad definition of the uniting of two or more people together creating long-term bonds), most of which are already available to homosexuals. What I said was that the government acknowledgment and special status given to marriage is an affirmative action. One for which there is a vast societal interest, that does not exist in regards to same-sex unions.

I would say adoption needs more "affirmative action" than sex.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I would say adoption needs more "affirmative action" than sex.

Wow, that is so true.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I haven't. Are you saying that homosexuals there choose to look different than normal people?

Many do, yes. "Normal" is pretty subjective.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We have definition of "marriage" that works and serves a purpose as I've outlined. There is a societal interest based on biological facts of life. The fact of the matter is, it really doesn't have anything to do with religion.

It has everything to do with religion as God worshipers seem to be the only people who have a problem with it. The push to ban gay marriages in the U.S. is almost exclusively pushed by Christians, based purely on their religious belief.

Marriage has historically always been about uniting two families and their assets. The growing influence of Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions is what pushed marriage into something involving biology. Even the Catholic Church recognized same-sex unions, though this was between two bishops, cardinals, or priests when ownership of property was "threatened" by an inheritor being a woman. This, too, has everything to do with religion, because their twisted interpretation of their faith is to keep men in the position of power and women subservient.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The government simply has no real compelling interest in interfering with who we "love". Absent the compelling societal interest that is created by the natural biological response that occurs in men and women who unite, there's really no reason for government entities to get involved.

There is a natural, biological response to two homosexuals being united. It is genetic. For one reason or another, a person of one sex finds the attributes of another person of the same sex to be the ideal candidate for procreation; regardless if physically being capable of doing so.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

While I have no problems with people who want to change things just because they want it, you can't try to argue for it based on fairness or equality since we aren't dealing with equal things.

So interracial couples should go back to not being able to get married?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I would say adoption needs more "affirmative action" than sex.

I was under the impression that there was essentially a waiting list a mile long to adopt a baby. People even pay big time $$$ to buy one. I'm not sure there needs to be affirmative action for what is already a very lucrative industry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It has everything to do with religion as God worshipers seem to be the only people who have a problem with it.

Seeing how based on polling the majority of the people in the United States are "God worshippers", it would seem almost impossible for that NOT to be the case. Of course, the fact that there are reasons other than religious belief to support the current standard would be lost on a religious bigot.

Marriage has historically always been about uniting two families and their assets.

..and the creation of heirs.

There is a natural, biological response to two homosexuals being united. It is genetic

I don't disagree. The problem is that this is 100% no business of the government. They have no compelling interest in how we desire sex.

So interracial couples should go back to not being able to get married?

Did we ever put into the Constitution specific amendments whose purpose was to make racial discrimination unconstitutional? I believe we did. I don't however ever remember there being a similar effort in regards to our sexual choices.

[hyteckit]

Affirmative Action? WTF? Gay marriages are affirmative action?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Affirmative Action? WTF? Gay marriages are affirmative action?

Actually, I think he's trying to call *Hetero* marriages "affirmative action". With all of the spinning going on, it's kinda hard to tell for sure, though.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think something simply being "genetic" is exactly the same when you can choose to either do or not do something based on that genetic preference. You can't choose not to engage in "black behavior". When someone looks at you and says you can't drink at a certain water fountain, it isn't because of what they've been observed to have done - it's because of the color of their skin. I can't look at someone and know they are gay and discriminate against them unless they choose to engage in sexual practices that many believe to be immoral (whether you agree or not) or choose to do SOMETHING that alerts me to the fact that they've decided to act on their genetic preference (if it is genetic).

If due to some genetically created chemical imbalance you are a violent person who has the urge to kill, is that "exactly the same" as being black as far as you needing special protection for something you can't help, or is simply not being able to help what you desire to do enough?

The fact is, people can choose to act on their preferences. They should be free to act on those preferences without government interference if they don't directly interfere with someone else's rights or if doing so causes some greater societal ill. However, I think it would be a huge mistake to start legislating what we can or can't choose to do and get protection for it. That's a huge slippery slope that does infringe on others rights to discriminate for themselves based on observable behavior.

I think discrimination based on behavior is a good thing. It's one way we ensure order in society. People are more likely to behave properly if they know that they may be shunned by their peers for acting in immoral or anti-social ways. Kooks are less likely to burn crosses in their neighbor's lawns if they know it might cost them their job because their boss won't like their persona behavior. True homophobes are less likely to taunt and abuse gay people if they know that others won't tolerate that sort of thing.

The thing about freedom though is that sometimes the freedom others enjoy doesn't exactly help you with yours. That's life. You have to take the good with the bad.

I see it now.

Lets ban divorces.

Lets criminalize extramarital affairs.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Lets criminalize extramarital affairs.

Already grounds to legally break the marriage "contract".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Already grounds to legally break the marriage "contract".

That's hardly punishment worthy of the societal ill caused by extramarital affairs.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Already grounds to legally break the marriage "contract".

Well, if you ban divorces, you can only criminalize extramarital affairs and fine the violator.

We don't want to encourage divorces by giving married couples a whole bunch of "reasons" or "outs" of the marriage "contract".

Ban Divorces.

No way to break the marriage "contract" unless the other person dies as in "till death do us part" of the "contract".

Sounds like the best way to protect the sanctity of marriage and keep the family intact as part of the Hetero marriage or nuclear family.

[Wiskedjak]

It's occurring to me that if the goal is to encourage marriages that might result in offspring, we should probably be encouraging polygamous marriages, thereby increasing the opportunity for reproduction.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It has everything to do with religion as God worshipers...

Say no more. I'm a "God worshiper" that thinks we should simply have civil unions for all. Why you insist on making claims you can't quantify with anything other than your own prejudice is beyond me.

... the only people who have a problem with it. The push to ban gay marriages in the U.S. is almost exclusively pushed by Christians, based purely on their religious belief.

Church leadership does not comprise the collective sentiment of the American people. They are diverse and a majority of them oppose it. I don't think their church attendance on Christmas and Easter is having near as much bearing on their views as you seem to think. I maintain that most do not see a genetic component to homosexuality and do not regard it with as much legitimacy as race. You may find this unfortunate, but it is so.

It is genetic. For one reason or another, a person of one sex finds the attributes of another person of the same sex to be the ideal candidate for procreation; regardless if physically being capable of doing so.

You've wrapped it up neatly, but it would be just as scientifically valid for me to say there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

So interracial couples should go back to not being able to get married?

No. You should probably quit marginalizing the plight of African Americans in this country by equating the right to marry who you want with the right to vote, work, own, and not be owned.

[besson3c]

So you have no major problems with allowing gays to marriage, but people should just shut up and stop whining since this wasn't as bad as the plight of African Americans?

Why are so many Conservatives against making improvements and thinking progressively?

[stupendousman]

I never said that anything should be "punished". I think positive reinforcement works best. You know, the type of thing that affirmative actions are good for!

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's occurring to me that if the goal is to encourage marriages that might result in offspring...

Not that goal. When men and women get together in long term unions, the result IS normally offspring. That's a fact. There is nothing that needs encouragement in that.

The question is what society can do in order to try and encourage those people to stay together and raise their children in a loving home. That's the societal interest the government has in sponsoring unions between the people in question and give them special status.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you have no major problems with allowing gays to marriage, but people should just shut up and stop whining since this wasn't as bad as the plight of African Americans?

No, of course not. Is that what Obama is saying besson? Why would you assume this is what I'm saying? I thought you were tired of this type of rhetoric.

Why are so many Conservatives against making improvements and thinking progressively?

Well... in principle I'd say it's because Progressives insist on bringing back well-documented failures from yesteryear. Ideals that are more promise and paper than appreciable improvement.

In terms of gay marriage rights, it is a matter of legitimacy; a case that has not yet been made sufficiently enough to earn a place at the table of the most pressing matters facing this country. Particularly when about half the 4% gay and lesbian in this country actually want to get married themselves. I believe what will likely occur is the state will grant civil unions to all, letting the churches marry whom they deem fit, but I'm not certain this is going to be good enough for the gay community, it's easier said than done, and I don't see it making its way to the table any time soon. I could be wrong.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are so many Conservatives against making improvements and thinking progressively?

I think it's funny when the left talks of "progression". It comes off quite Orwellian when the opposite goal is usually the case. I'm not sure why anyone would want us to regress to a less civilized and organized culture. Do we really want to regress to standards from the Roman times that proved to fail?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, of course not. Is that what Obama is saying besson? Why would you assume this is what I'm saying? I thought you were tired of this type of rhetoric.

Hence my asking for clarification. This is better than taking the ball and running with a misunderstood idea, no?

Well... in principle I'd say it's because Progressives insist on bringing back well-documented failures from yesteryear. Ideals that are more promise and paper than appreciable improvement.

I was thinking mostly in terms of social conservatism, although I should have said that. No offense to anybody here, but most staunch social conservatives come across as bat **** crazy to me. You either want your government involvement and intrusion or you don't. If you don't, this needs to include religious philosophy, the rights of gays, the rights of gays to serve in the military, the right for women to have full jurisdiction over their bodies, not being treated as a criminal for smoking pot, etc. Maybe this is more of a Libertarian thing though.

In terms of gay marriage rights, it is a matter of legitimacy; a case that has not yet been made sufficiently enough to earn a place at the table of the most pressing matters facing this country. Particularly when about half the 4% gay and lesbian in this country actually want to get married themselves. I believe what will likely occur is the state will grant civil unions to all, letting the churches marry whom they deem fit, but I'm not certain this is going to be good enough for the gay community, it's easier said than done, and I don't see it making its way to the table any time soon. I could be wrong.

Just let the states and churches decide, this is definitely not a federal issue. A constitutional amendment for gay marriage is just retarded for a whole host of reasons.

[Rumor]

Is marriage to someone who is a hermaphrodite okay?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Is marriage to someone who is a hermaphrodite okay?

Yes and no.

[Rumor]

I am curious because they do not have a choice on what they are. Many (not all) conservatives/religious types think that being straight/gay is a choice. A hermaphrodite is an example of a genetic reason why one may be the way they are. An imbalance of the X and Y chromosome which leads one to be more feminine or masculine.

[BadKosh]

none of this has anything to do with FOX news anymore........

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The question is what society can do in order to try and encourage those people to stay together and raise their children in a loving home.

And you think barring one group of people from marriage will encourage will help to encourage another group people to stay together and raise their children in a loving home??? That hasn't worked in the last 100 years ... what makes you think it'll work now?

If this is truly your concern, then your adversary is Divorce, not Same Sex Marriage. The ease with which we can get divorced is what causes people to get married without much thought, resulting in failed marriages and families. Your other adversary is public-figures-who-advocate-family-values-in-front-of-the-camera-while-cheating-on-their-spouse-behind-the-camera (and then get caught); there's nothing more damaging to an argument than when it's strongest proponents can't even live up to it. You might also want to take a look at where divorce-rates are highest and ask yourself why they're higher there than elsewhere.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

none of this has anything to do with FOX news anymore........

meh. It's an interesting conversation, regardless of whether it is specifically applicable to the topic that happens to appear in the thread title.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The same societal interest in seeing to it that men and woman who come together in long term unions and create biological offspring stay together and raise that child?

Wait wait...so a man and woman coming together in a long term union to create biological offspring is the purpose of government-sanctioned marriage, right?

So people who never have children should be forced to dissolve their marriage, right?

What about sterile couples? People who are involuntarily incapable of having children - they shouldn't be allowed to get married, because they cannot fulfill their societal obligation to procreate.

Right?

What about couples with a goal of not having children? They shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?

And if marriage is about a long-term union with the sole goal of procreation, why is divorce legal?

Oh, and what about single parents? Isn't it in the best interest of society to remove the child and place it in a home with a mother and a father, since obviously a single parent isn't fulfilling their societal obligation to do things your way?

And, since you ignored it already, you still need to answer this rather critical question:

Is marriage really about having children, or is it about committing to loving and supporting another human being for as long as you both shall live?

If marriage is about having children, then people who do not have children should not be allowed to be married. People who can't have children should be banned from marriage. Elderly couples who have aged past the point of fertility should be legally prohibited from marriage. After all, that's just discriminating in what you see is a good way - an elderly couple or a sterile couple in love shouldn't be allowed to get married, just like a homosexual couple in love shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Right?

Also: you may have intended on not having children, and been stupid enough to not take the necessary precautions to prevent procreation. Some of us are more intent on our goals, and access things like voluntary sterilization to prevent getting pregnant.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Wait wait...so a man and woman coming together in a long term union to create biological offspring is the purpose of government-sanctioned marriage, right?

So people who never have children should be forced to dissolve their marriage, right?

What about sterile couples? People who are involuntarily incapable of having children - they shouldn't be allowed to get married, because they cannot fulfill their societal obligation to procreate.

Right?

What about couples with a goal of not having children? They shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?

And if marriage is about a long-term union with the sole goal of procreation, why is divorce legal?

Oh, and what about single parents? Isn't it in the best interest of society to remove the child and place it in a home with a mother and a father, since obviously a single parent isn't fulfilling their societal obligation to do things your way?

And, since you ignored it already, you still need to answer this rather critical question:

Is marriage really about having children, or is it about committing to loving and supporting another human being for as long as you both shall live?

If marriage is about having children, then people who do not have children should not be allowed to be married. People who can't have children should be banned from marriage. Elderly couples who have aged past the point of fertility should be legally prohibited from marriage. After all, that's just discriminating in what you see is a good way - an elderly couple or a sterile couple in love shouldn't be allowed to get married, just like a homosexual couple in love shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Right?

Also: you may have intended on not having children, and been stupid enough to not take the necessary precautions to prevent procreation. Some of us are more intent on our goals, and access things like voluntary sterilization to prevent getting pregnant.

That's a great point, but here's stupendousman's upcoming answer:

"Affirmative action programs rarely do such in-depth screening. For instance, race-based quota systems don't discriminate between underprivileged people of a race and rich people who also belong to the same category. Normally I would criticize these systems for being pants-on-head retarded, but when it comes to attacking homosexual marriage, suddenly these poorly thought-out affirmative action programs are the model on which everything in the universe should be based."

[BadKosh]

Ah yes, the "ignore the 97 percent or more of the normal families and focus on the deviants" arguement.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Ah yes, the "ignore the 97 percent or more of the normal families and focus on the deviants" arguement.

Clarify: What attention is currently focused on "normal families" that people are proposing to take away?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Clarify: What attention is currently focused on "normal families" that people are proposing to take away?

I think what he meant is that by allowing gay marriages, it will ruin traditional marriages.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and the creation of heirs.

No, marriage had nothing to do with producing heirs. It was strictly a formal legalization of combination of assets.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did we ever put into the Constitution specific amendments whose purpose was to make racial discrimination unconstitutional? I believe we did. I don't however ever remember there being a similar effort in regards to our sexual choices.

Which needs to change. It's ridiculously silly to protect religion but not sexual orientation.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think what he meant is that by allowing gay marriages, it will ruin traditional marriages.

How will gay marriages ruin traditional marriages? I mean, other than taking occasional trips to the Appalachian mountains.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

How will gay marriages ruin traditional marriages? I mean, other than taking occasional trips to the Appalachian mountains.

As BadKosh says, allowing gay marriages would be ignoring "the 97 percent or more of the normal families and focus on the deviants".

[besson3c]

The word "deviant" makes gays sound like they are freaks of nature or something.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The word "deviant" makes gays sound like they are freaks of nature or something.

I find deviant to be artful.

deviantART: where ART meets application!

No wonder why gay men have such a keen eye on art, interior design, fashion, make-up, and so forth.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think what he meant is that by allowing gay marriages, it will ruin traditional marriages.

Perhaps, but I'd like to hear him explain.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Normally I would criticize these systems for being pants-on-head retarded, but when it comes to attacking homosexual marriage, suddenly these poorly thought-out affirmative action programs are the model on which everything in the universe should be based."

Heh. Apparently it takes a lot of mental masturbation and twists in logic to rationalize bigotry.

Originally Posted by BadK0sh

Ah yes, the "ignore the 97 percent or more of the normal families and focus on the deviants" arguement.

Um, and what, about 50% of 'traditional' marriages end in divorce. So wouldn't that be more like 'ignore the 48 percent or more of the normal families'? And doesn't that then really start to stretch the definition of 'normal'?

[stupendousman]

I'd reply but:

A. I pretty much already answered all the points in question. There are a lot of people participating who either haven't read the entire thread, or whose reading comprehension skills are so low that they just can't grasp what I've wrote.

B. You guys are saving yourselves a lot of time (and likely embarrassment) by just cutting out the middle man and inventing responses or arguments I might make. That's pretty much a default "win" on my part in regards to the debate.

CONGRATS!

[shifuimam]

I used to think that homosexuality was a choice, like stupendousman and others. I bought into the BS that homosexuality is just about sexual intercourse and not about an emotional relationship.

Then I actually started meeting and building friendships with gay people.

I have to tell you, I can't imagine anyone choosing to be gay just to get some action from those of their own gender. I'm pretty good friends with two lesbian couples. The older couple (now in their 40s, been together since they were 16 - how many hetero relationships these days can say the same...?) had to deal with one of the women getting fired because her manager found out she's gay. The other couple deals with heavily judgmental legalistic Christian family members, and is going through the rough stigma of a gay couple looking to have a child.

One of these women realized she was "different" and liked girls more than boys when she was in second grade.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for a child or a teenager to realize what's going on in their heart and mind, and know that they are going to be persecuted for it throughout their life, risking the loss of jobs, friends, loved ones, family members...

No, I don't think that's a choice.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd reply but:

A. I pretty much already answered all the points in question. There are a lot of people participating who either haven't read the entire thread, or whose reading comprehension skills are so low that they just can't grasp what I've wrote.

B. You guys are saving yourselves a lot of time (and likely embarrassment) by just cutting out the middle man and inventing responses or arguments I might make. That's pretty much a default "win" on my part in regards to the debate.

CONGRATS!

I don't want to sift through four pages of your FUD, so answer me this:

Can marriage be for any reason other than procreation? Is a marriage that is childless until the death of one or both parties illegitimate in your eyes due to the lack of offspring?

Did you get married primarily to have children or because you were madly in love with your wife?

I'd guess the latter, since you mentioned that you didn't plan on having kids.

So why did you get married? What about that pesky societal expectation of procreation? Didn't you feel a little dirty getting married to someone for the sole purpose of spending the rest of your life with them?!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I believe what will likely occur is the state will grant civil unions to all, letting the churches marry whom they deem fit, but I'm not certain this is going to be good enough for the gay community, it's easier said than done, and I don't see it making its way to the table any time soon. I could be wrong.

Most gay people I've met who want marriage rights want the same legal and government-recognized rights as heterosexual couples.

If the government gave civil union rights to all and quit using the word "marriage" in legal documentation, that would be great. That way, religious marriage rituals go untainted in the eyes of those who need them, and everyone has exactly the same rights in the eyes of the law.

That's not good enough for legalistic Christians, though. In their rationale, legalizing gay marriage is akin to the government forcing you to accept homosexuality as morally right.

Which is stupid, since lots of Christians think pornography, the consumption of alcohol, and the use of vulgar language are all equally morally wrong, yet the government explicitly legalizes all three.

Oh, and the argument that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of your own marriage is equally idiotic. If you need a piece of paper from the government to make you feel like you're committed to your partner, you've got a whole other set of issues. The gay marriage issue isn't about the government saying "you love your spouse", it's about the government saying "here's a bunch of legal and financial concessions we only grant to couplings we explicitly sanction".

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd reply but:

A. I pretty much already answered all the points in question. There are a lot of people participating who either haven't read the entire thread, or whose reading comprehension skills are so low that they just can't grasp what I've wrote.

B. You guys are saving yourselves a lot of time (and likely embarrassment) by just cutting out the middle man and inventing responses or arguments I might make. That's pretty much a default "win" on my part in regards to the debate.

CONGRATS!

That's because your 'affirmative action' argument has no merit. The standards you define on who gets the 'affirmative action' are inconsistent and arbitrary, and only serve to reinforce your own preconceived notions on who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry. An effective way to illustrate this is indeed to apply your 'logic' to different aspects of the argument. The only place you have a default 'win' is in your own mind.

CONGRATS!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Which is stupid, since lots of Christians think pornography, the consumption of alcohol, and the use of vulgar language are all equally morally wrong, yet the government explicitly legalizes all three.

And Christians are the biggest consumers of pornography and alcohol in the US.

Mormons, not so much.

[besson3c]

Preach on, Shif!

Would it be accurate to say that you are sort of a social moderate or liberal, and economically conservative?

[hyteckit]

86 year old veteran with a gay son.

I am here today because of a conversation I had last June when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me, "Do you believe in equal, equality for gay and lesbian people?" I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her, "What do you think our boys fought for at Omaha Beach?" I haven't seen much, so much blood and guts, so much suffering, much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that give America a great nation, one worth dying for.

Read more at: Philip Spooner VIDEO: WWII Veteran Makes Case For Gay Marriage

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As far as it's effectiveness goes, there's a simple test. While maybe it's not AS effective as it once was, people often times STILL DO get married due to an impending addition to their household. There's still a societal construct out there that the "right thing" to do when you have children STILL is to get married.

So what marriage encourages is…marriage?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I do understand that over the last 40 years or so, with constant attacks from the left, this affirmative action has lost SOME of it's power.

Oh, don't go trying to blame that on the left. People get into bad marriages and get divorced just as much in red states as blue. Straights are the ones discrediting marriage, not gay rights activists.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I just don't think we should allow the left to further hurt this interest to our society by changing the definition so there is no longer ANY government acknowledgement or impetus for humans who create new life to manage the upbringing of that life in a stable mother/father/child setting.

So what you're saying is, if gays adopt a child, that child doesn't deserve stability in his or her life?

[shifuimam]

You know, all this argument about the "vast societal interest" of marriage allegedly encouraging procreation - wouldn't you say that there's also a "vast societal interest" to marriage encouraging commitment and monogamy? Think about the benefits of monogamy - less spreading of STDs, less unwanted pregnancies...

I think there are clear benefits to commitment. I'd say that people are generally happier when they have a partner to accompany them through life, and happier people equal a happier society, no?

[shifuimam]

Oh, also...how in the world did mankind manage to build up the population before the United States federal government was there to sanction it? I mean, if allowing gay marriage means that our only real motivation for having children is going down the drain...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Most gay people I've met who want marriage rights want the same legal and government-recognized rights as heterosexual couples.

If the government gave civil union rights to all and quit using the word "marriage" in legal documentation, that would be great. That way, religious marriage rituals go untainted in the eyes of those who need them, and everyone has exactly the same rights in the eyes of the law.

Of course gay people who want marriage want the same legal and government-recognized rights as heterosexual couples and I would hope you're right that this is all gays want, but I'm not as confident as you that this would suffice. Seeking rights and seeking legitimacy are two different things.

That's not good enough for legalistic Christians, though. In their rationale, legalizing gay marriage is akin to the government forcing you to accept homosexuality as morally right.

Most of the country is opposed to gay marriage including the President. I don't think attendance on Christmas and Easter is enough to turn the majority of the country into "legalistic Christians". I think it's easy to point a finger at something for the "quick fix", but you'll fix nothing with the indictment. It's misdirected. IMO, most do not accept the "genetic" argument for homosexuality and as such do not attribute as much legitimacy or acknowledgement to the "condition".

Which is stupid, since lots of Christians think pornography, the consumption of alcohol, and the use of vulgar language are all equally morally wrong, yet the government explicitly legalizes all three.

I'm sure there are those that would very much like to see laws against alcohol, vulgar language and books, etc... because lots of people think lots of things. They usually represent the easiest of opposition to address.

Oh, and the argument that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of your own marriage is equally idiotic.

See besson? You're not the only springboard around here.

If you need a piece of paper from the government to make you feel like you're committed to your partner, you've got a whole other set of issues.

Don't look now, but I think you've just made an argument against not only gay marriage, but marriage in general.

The gay marriage issue isn't about the government saying "you love your spouse", it's about the government saying "here's a bunch of legal and financial concessions we only grant to couplings we explicitly sanction".

What was so reprehensible about Prop 8 shif?