[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you can accept stupendousman's premise that the only reason marriage exists is to trick people into having children, then it's a small leap to think that allowing homos to marry each other would give them a reason to not hetero-marry and thus accidentally have sex, producing children.

Only if he could demonstrate that many homosexuals were currently entering regular marriages and doing just that.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

While I completely agree with you, the same argument could be made for allowing hate speech ("It only hurts people who let it hurt them").

In fact I do make that argument regarding free speech.

[Tiresias]

Hate speech is better than Newspeak.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

While I completely agree with you, the same argument could be made for allowing hate speech ("It only hurts people who let it hurt them").

Hate speech is, and should be protected, unless it directly incites someone to violence. If you call me a derogatory name, it's up to me whether to feel insecure about it and counterpunch, or realize that it's not a true representation of myself and let it slide.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

So how does giving marriage benefits to homosexuals hurt society?

Better question, How does it help society?

[Chuckit]

Any freedom that does not cause harm is a good thing. I would expect an American to understand that.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Better question, How does it help society?

That's not a better question. Because one doesn't need to justify a benefit towards society in order to be granted an equal right.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Any freedom that does not cause harm is a good thing. I would expect an American to understand that.

Of course, Chuckit beat me to it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

So how does giving marriage benefits to homosexuals hurt society?

No one's ever been able to answer that question, as it only hurts people who let it hurt them.

Whose argument is it that it would 'hurt society"?

Using my racial affirmative action example, would allowing wealthy white people to partake of the same affirmative action given to minorities "hurt society"? Not really I don't think. But it would pretty much negate the special benefits that were to be given to encourage a specific thing. While it might not "hurt society", it would tend to help it less than keeping the focus more clearly balanced on those that might have a real need for it. Affirmative actions work because they give special benefits to a group who has a special need.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you can accept stupendousman's premise that the only reason marriage exists is to trick people into having children, then it's a small leap to think that allowing homos to marry each other would give them a reason to not hetero-marry and thus accidentally have sex, producing children.

Strawman.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Whose argument is it that it would 'hurt society"?

Using my racial affirmative action example, would allowing wealthy white people to partake of the same affirmative action given to minorities "hurt society"? Not really I don't think. But it would pretty much negate the special benefits that were to be given to encourage a specific thing. While it might not "hurt society", it would tend to help it less than keeping the focus more clearly balanced on those that might have a real need for it. Affirmative actions work because they give special benefits to a group who has a special need.

I don't think the limited resource being managed by affirmative action (jobs) makes a good equivalent for the resource that is being managed by only allowing heterosexuals to marry.

In fact, I can't really imagine what that resource is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think the limited resource being managed by affirmative action (jobs) makes a good equivalent for the resource that is being managed by only allowing heterosexuals to marry.

In fact, I can't really imagine what that resource is.

Affirmative actions aren't limited to management of resources and never have been. There's a plethora of reasons why an entity would want to give benefits to encourage one thing or discourage another. Our entire system of government incentives and disincentives has little to do with resource management, so limiting it's scope in such a way doesn't serve to moot the point.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Strawman.

What is? You don't contend that the only reason for marriage is to produce children? That doesn't make sense because if there are other reasons for it then homos should be allowed to do it too, because you've said the plain and simple reason against homo-marriage is because homos can't produce children, the reason for marriage in the first place. If there are other reasons too, then your child-bearing motivation is not conclusive. So which is it?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Affirmative actions aren't limited to management of resources and never have been. There's a plethora of reasons why an entity would want to give benefits to encourage one thing or discourage another. Our entire system of government incentives and disincentives has little to do with resource management, so limiting it's scope in such a way doesn't serve to moot the point.

You have still not answered my question as to exactly what it is that allowing all heterosexuals to marry is accomplishing that allowing homosexuals to marry would not accomplish. Your argument seems to be that because some programs discriminate racially, it's OK to discriminate against people for no reason at all.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

That's not a better question. Because one doesn't need to justify a benefit towards society in order to be granted an equal right.

Of course, Chuckit beat me to it.

Then, If all consenting adults agree, one should be able to take on as many wives as they could support. All throughout history, men have been allowed multiple wives. Why the sudden change to only one per?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then, If all consenting adults agree, one should be able to take on as many wives as they could support. All throughout history, men have been allowed multiple wives. Why the sudden change to only one per?

You seem to think you're doing reductio ad absurdum here, but I don't necessarily think plural marriage should be banned. However, the marriage system we have now makes the invariant assumption of two current partners (with some bits to handle former partners thrown into the mix), so it would require a different kind of institution. We can't simply extend marriage rights to multiple partners because they weren't designed that way. There is also not much of a cultural tradition of plural marriage outside Mormonism, so it's hard to define as a general rule. For these reasons, I'm not particularly gung-ho about getting plural marriage legalized.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What is? You don't contend that the only reason for marriage is to produce children?

Your precise quote was that the only reason for marriage "exists is to trick people into having children". I've gone out of my way to explain that when men and women join into long term unions, there's no need to "trick" them into doing anything. Often times, even when they DON'T WANT children or think that they can't have them, THEY DO. To suggest that there's any trick to populating the Earth is absurd and any attempt to argue against a position like that which I don't have and have never stated is a "strawman".

When you can argue against my actual points....we may continue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Affirmative actions aren't limited to management of resources and never have been.

I didn't say they were. Resource management is relevant because that is the type of affirmative action you said made a good analogue.

Or were you thinking of something other than jobs when you mentioned the "special benefits" that would be "negated" by "allowing wealthy white people to partake of the same affirmative action given to minorities"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Our entire system of government incentives and disincentives has little to do with resource management

So a fine doesn't act as a disincentive by taking away my resources?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You have still not answered my question as to exactly what it is that allowing all heterosexuals to marry is accomplishing that allowing homosexuals to marry would not accomplish.

A. The government doesn't "allow" people to "marry". They simply choose to recognize certain unions as "marriage" and some they do not. People can take whatever vows they want for whatever reason they want before whatever religious figure they choose. The government won't stop it.

B. What does giving special status to men and women, who choose to engage in long-term unions of the type that results in offspring, who vow to stay together "till death do us part" accomplish? It puts forth an "affirmative action" to encourage men and women who have or will likely reproduce to stay together permanently in a manner which will benefit their offspring. GIving this status to people who CHOSE NOT TO engage in the types of unions in question is the same as giving racial affirmative action to wealthy white people. It won't hurt, but it won't help either. At that point, there's no reason to continue with the affirmative action in question. I feel the same about marriage affirmative action. There's little compelling state interest in endorsing emotion. If you reduce "marriage" down to state recognition of an emotion (which isn't the case currently), then you might as well chuck it all and just let people do what they do. The result I'm sure will be a further rise in single parenting, which studies show isn't what's best for children.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then, If all consenting adults agree, one should be able to take on as many wives as they could support. All throughout history, men have been allowed multiple wives. Why the sudden change to only one per?

If you are going to use the same justification for homosexual marriage (civil union) to justify polygamy, you have to ask the same question about whether polygamy harms society. I'd say it causes way more harm.

That being said, I don't think it should be illegal, I just wouldn't use the same rationale to justify its legality.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

We can't simply extend marriage rights to multiple partners because they weren't designed that way. There is also not much of a cultural tradition of plural marriage outside Mormonism, so it's hard to define as a general rule. For these reasons, I'm not particularly gung-ho about getting plural marriage legalized.

Wait, marriage was designed for homosexuals? Or there is a cultural tradition of homosexual marriage? News to me...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your precise quote was that the only reason for marriage "exists is to trick people into having children". I've gone out of my way to explain that when men and women join into long term unions, there's no need to "trick" them into doing anything. Often times, even when they DON'T WANT children or think that they can't have them, THEY DO.

How is that not a trick? Something happens to the couple that you wanted to happen all along, and they wanted not to happen, and it happens because of marriage (according to you), ... sounds like tricking them to me

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

is the same as giving racial affirmative action to wealthy white people.

Unless you're implying that whatever you're actually giving as affirmative action (jobs/scholarships/money/etc) would be just as plentiful whether or not the white people took their share as well, then no it's not really the same at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you are going to use the same justification for homosexual marriage (civil union) to justify polygamy, you have to ask the same question about whether polygamy harms society. I'd say it causes way more harm.

That being said, I don't think it should be illegal, I just wouldn't use the same rationale to justify its legality.

While I might have numerous philosophical and even moral/ethical problems with polygamy; the slippery slope argument doesn't hold up IMO. As far as I know, all States have laws against multiple marriage licenses. This can also be fought from the potential immigration fraud view. I just don't think allowing gay marriage would lead to legalized polygamy and I agree with you that the arguments against polygamy are much more solid if nothing more than the fact that all States in the US would have to literally change their laws.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

large image showing distaste for Americans

How is your xenophobia relevant at all to the subject of the thread?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wait, marriage was designed for homosexuals? Or there is a cultural tradition of homosexual marriage? News to me...

No, but there is not an effective difference. Marriage was not specifically designed with interracial couples in mind, but race isn't an invariant of the marriage system — people's races are interchangeable and it still works the same. Ditto for sex. The same is not true of numbers, though.

Put another way: For gay marriage, the answer to "How would such-and-such work?" would be "Exactly the same as in a straight marriage." This answer wouldn't work for plural marriage, though, because there are additional considerations that make it different. (For instance, the idea of adultery would have to be greatly revised.)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I might have numerous philosophical and even moral/ethical problems with polygamy; the slippery slope argument doesn't hold up IMO. As far as I know, all States have laws against multiple marriage licenses. This can also be fought from the potential immigration fraud view. I just don't think allowing gay marriage would lead to legalized polygamy and I agree with you that the arguments against polygamy are much more solid if nothing more than the fact that all States in the US would have to literally change their laws.

iIt takes only one State to change it marriage laws and it affects the whole of the U.S.
Article 4, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is one of the reasons Utah was forced to renounce plural marriage in order to become a state.
1890 Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW I am NOT Mormon. I was born (6th generation),raised and live in a state with a large Mormon population (AZ) and am familiar with their history.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wait, marriage was designed for homosexuals? Or there is a cultural tradition of homosexual marriage? News to me...

Actually, there may indeed be a long history of homosexual unions.

ScienceDaily: Are Homosexual Civil Unions A 600-year-old Tradition?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

iIt takes only one State to change it marriage laws and it affects the whole of the U.S.
Article 4, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is one of the reasons Utah was forced to renounce plural marriage in order to become a state.
1890 Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not really. California doesn't recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts and I don't believe the state has ever been called on it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

iIt takes only one State to change it marriage laws and it affects the whole of the U.S.
Article 4, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is one of the reasons Utah was forced to renounce plural marriage in order to become a state.
1890 Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to get busy, and inform all the states that they are in violation of the Constitution, as they sure don't see it your way. You don't think that various pro same-sex marriage groups have tried this yet, or that this hasn't been discussed before? This happens to fall under the "states' rights" umbrella. I happen to believe that it should be federally recognized and universal, but it just isn't. Yet.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not really. California doesn't recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts and I don't believe the state has ever been called on it.

Yet.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You need to get busy, and inform all the states that they are in violation of the Constitution, as they sure don't see it your way.

Gloria Allred , and Lisa Bloom are on it!

[OldManMac]

Good for them, and I can assure you that they're not the only ones. It will happen; it's just a matter of time. I fervently hope that it will be within my lifetime, so I can witness my oldest daughter's marriage, and then she can legally continue her attempts to convert all Americans, and push forward the dreaded Gay Agenda.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yet.

Oh, don't get me wrong — people have tried to argue that their gay marriages should be recognized, but nobody has ever successfully argued that the state has an obligation to condone illegal contracts just because they were legal in the state where they were made.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I might have numerous philosophical and even moral/ethical problems with polygamy; the slippery slope argument doesn't hold up IMO. As far as I know, all States have laws against multiple marriage licenses. This can also be fought from the potential immigration fraud view. I just don't think allowing gay marriage would lead to legalized polygamy and I agree with you that the arguments against polygamy are much more solid if nothing more than the fact that all States in the US would have to literally change their laws.

Good points about the harm polygamy could harm society if it was abused. I was only thinking about the harm it caused from people practicing it correctly.

As nauseous as I find it however, it's got a double whammy of "consenting adults" and "religious freedoms" on its side. I'm willing to trust my loathing of it and let it perish in the marketplace of ideas rather than legislate it away.

The government doesn't need to jump through any hoops to recognize it, but it should be decriminalized.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How is that not a trick? Something happens to the couple that you wanted to happen all along, and they wanted not to happen, and it happens because of marriage (according to you), ... sounds like tricking them to me

That "something" that happens that is desired is that they stay committed in the relationship longer, which is in the interest of society due to the overwhelming odds that they will reproduce. There is no "trick", unless it's human biology that is doing the tricking. Ever since the dawn of man, people who want to have sex and do so for a long period of time end up finding themselves reproducing often times whether they intended to or not.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, but there is not an effective difference. Marriage was not specifically designed with interracial couples in mind, but race isn't an invariant of the marriage system — people's races are interchangeable and it still works the same. Ditto for sex.

All except for the very thing which causes society and the government to have a compelling interest to intervene: the natural reproduction that normally occurs in these unions. That's puts the two types of unions in question in drastically different categories. Your "exactly the same as straight marriages" test would not work for homosexual unions on this basis. It would for interracial marriages.

[OldManMac]

You keep bringing the government into society's need to reproduce, which is a fallacious argument. People need to reproduce to keep the species going, no matter what kind of government, or non-government, exists. If there were no formal government, people would still need to reproduce, and the small fraction of the population that has always been homosexual has never affected that process. Your attempts to spin this as an issue that requires government intervention don't hold water.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You keep bringing the government into society's need to reproduce, which is a fallacious argument. People need to reproduce to keep the species going, no matter what kind of government, or non-government, exists. If there were no formal government, people would still need to reproduce, and the small fraction of the population that has always been homosexual has never affected that process. Your attempts to spin this as an issue that requires government intervention don't hold water.

That needed to be said, although it was pretty much obvious to anyone but stupedousman already. So, here's the QFT™

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All except for the very thing which causes society and the government to have a compelling interest to intervene: the natural reproduction that normally occurs in these unions.

Baseless assertion.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's puts the two types of unions in question in drastically different categories. Your "exactly the same as straight marriages" test would not work for homosexual unions on this basis. It would for interracial marriages.

Go back and reread what I wrote. My statement had nothing to do with some unwritten "motivation." It was about practicality — marriage as generally laid out can technically apply to any two people (though it's usually forbidden to one arbitrary class), but it cannot apply to more than two. This is a "square circle" situation, not the "There can't be a purple circle because circles just ought to be blue!" situation that you're talking about.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That "something" that happens that is desired is that they stay committed in the relationship longer

That's not what you said before, but it doesn't matter because you're about to go back to the old song...

, which is in the interest of society...

Here it comes...

due to the overwhelming odds that they will reproduce.

Bingo! So again, you're saying that society's interest here is so that "they will reproduce." The only thing you changed is to add that this goal is brought about by encouraging couples to commit to each other. But the "desired outcome" for society is still reproduction, and it's also still the "undesired outcome" for a lot of couples, which you would like to influence in order for them to inadvertently "find themselves reproducing." Still sounds like you're essentially trying to trick them into having children against their intentions.

BTW, what's wrong with encouraging homos to commit to each other? Are you saying that John and Jane won't commit to each other as much if they see June and Joan committing to each other? "Baby, commitment is totally gay, so I'm leaving you."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You keep bringing the government into society's need to reproduce, which is a fallacious argument.

Good, since that's not MY argument.

It's not that society NEEDS to reproduce. It's that society WILL reproduce. Typically regardless of whether there's a need or a want. When it does inevitably happen, the government has an interest in the well being of the offspring created and as such helping to provide the most stable upbringing it can, hence the Government's stamp of approval on the tool which makes things more legit.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That needed to be said, although it was pretty much obvious to anyone but stupedousman already. So, here's the QFT™

Debates against arguments I don't make are NOT readily obvious to me. I prefer to focus my attention on the ones I do make.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Baseless assertion.

A. That the government has no overwhelming and compelling interest in child welfare?
or....
B. There is a more compelling interest in endorsing emotion?

Go back and reread what I wrote. My statement had nothing to do with some unwritten "motivation." It was about practicality — marriage as generally laid out can technically apply to any two people (though it's usually forbidden to one arbitrary class), but it cannot apply to more than two. This is a "square circle" situation, not the "There can't be a purple circle because circles just ought to be blue!" situation that you're talking about.

Uh..no. With the race senario you provide, the participants can enjoy ALL of the benefits and features of marriage that are the norm for people who come together in long term unions as those who marry do, same as those of the same race. On the other hand, members of the same sex can NOT enjoy ALL of the benefits and features of marriage that are the norm for people who come together in long term unions as those who marry do. It most definitely is the "square circle" you describe.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Someone from the 30s resisting interracial marriage could as easily argue that interracial couples were incapable of producing "pure bred" offspring or some such, and that those poor children would be culture-less rejects from both black and white society.

If you want to argue that society has an interest in providing stable parents for children who would exist regardless, then it follows that we would want to maximize the available pool of parents by not turning away homo couples who wish to adopt and create stable nuclear family units. At the very least, it doesn't hurt to just give them what they want so they can stop pestering us about it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bingo! So again, you're saying that society's interest here is so that "they will reproduce."

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that regardless, they WILL reproduce. That's then norm, regardless of what society wants. When they do join together in a long term union and do reproduce though, it is in society's interest to do what it can to ensure that the offspring in question will be raised in a loving home by their mother and father. The official endorsement of marriage for men and women who join together in long term unions, the norm being resultant reproduction, provides an affirmative action to encourage the biological unit in question to stay together, which is in society and the government's best interest.

You've got the cart before the horse.

BTW, what's wrong with encouraging homos to commit to each other?

Nothing, I suppose. I just don't see the benefit or removing the special status (and therefore, the affirmative action) in question so that government can simply acknowledge emotional attachment. I don't believe that 'feelings' are really a compelling state interest and if you totally remove the "man/women" thing, the only interest left is simply emotional attachment. That's why I'd support civil unions as an alternative. It serves the purpose to allow people who choose not to marry a way to more solidly interconnect their lives with others (gay or not) while still affording the men and women who we try to keep together in the man/women/child biological union a special status in society, therefore making it more appealing to keep the unit together.

Marriage and offspring have always went hand and hand. While neither are 100% required for the other to happen, it's been the norm that they do. This has been so strongly the case that society has created constructs such as the "shotgun wedding" and children born to unmarried parents have been referred to negatively as "bastards" (my mention is not an endorsement of either btw). If marriage has little to do with reproduction, then neither of those two phenomena should exist. They do, because it does. There are currently societal pressures such as the marriage bond which helps keep the family unit together during hard times - times when one or more of the participants might otherwise just bail without there being any ramifications. These are all things that simply DO NOT exist with gay relations. Two members of the same sex can have intercourse until the end of time and still will not reproduce and create the same societal interest as those who normally do.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=Uncle Skeleton;3490775]Someone from the 30s resisting interracial marriage could as easily argue that interracial couples were incapable of producing "pure bred" offspring or some such, and that those poor children would be culture-less rejects from both black and white society.[quote]

True. Someone from even farther back could have argued that a black man who tried to marry a white women should be hung.

[- - e r i k - -]

So it boils down to semantics and a vague notion of threat to the traditional family unit by labelling "civil unions" as "marriage"?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Good, since that's not MY argument.

It's not that society NEEDS to reproduce. It's that society WILL reproduce. Typically regardless of whether there's a need or a want. When it does inevitably happen, the government has an interest in the well being of the offspring created and as such helping to provide the most stable upbringing it can, hence the Government's stamp of approval on the tool which makes things more legit.

Good; then those who are heterosexual can marry and carry on their family ways, and those who are homosexual can marry and, since they can't have children, it doesn't matter in any event. No one is saying the government can't put their "stamp of approval" on heterosexual marriages. And heterosexuals who don't marry but have children will no doubt be alright with you, as they're brought up by a father and mother, even though they're living in sin. Every time someone rebuts you, your standard reply is that they missed your point; you're spinning your wheels and moving the target constantly, obviously grasping at straws, reverting to the tired and specious "special" rights argument and any number of other worn out fallacies. If it wasn't sad, it would be amusing, as to how far some people will go to stick their noses in others' lives, when the actions of those others have absolutely no effect on them. When my daughter gets to marry her partner, I'll let you know, so you can prepare to batten down the hatches, as this is going to be a life changing event for you, so I'm concerned, and I don't want you to be caught unaware.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I just don't see the benefit or removing the special status (and therefore, the affirmative action) in question so that government can simply acknowledge emotional attachment.

Freedom and equality would be the benefits. Once you have the government acknowledging emotional attachments, whether you believe it is just for the sake of encouraging commitment to families or you don't, you owe it to freedom and equality to grant that acknowledgment to everyone fairly. Similar to letting women join the police department, they may not be biologically "equal," but their rights need to be equal; that's what this country is all about.

I don't believe that 'feelings' are really a compelling state interest and if you totally remove the "man/women" thing, the only interest left is simply emotional attachment. That's why I'd support civil unions as an alternative.

I have to agree with Karl here, this is just semantics, and it totally harpoons your argument. The government shouldn't be involved in recognizing emotional attachment, unless they call it civil unions instead of marriages? I'm happy that we can all apparently find a compromise by just changing the name, but that completely invalidates your claim that the discrimination is based on some principled logic that governments have to avoid "just acknowledging emotional attachment."

These are all things that simply DO NOT exist with gay relations. Two members of the same sex can have intercourse until the end of time and still will not reproduce and create the same societal interest as those who normally do.

What about adoption and step-children? What about upcoming technologies like cloning and in vitro fertilization (mixed with cloning)? I know your standard rebuttal is to ignore the "exceptions," but that doesn't mean you can make categorical statements that are false. Gays can have families, if they choose.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I have to agree with Karl here, this is just semantics, and it totally harpoons your argument.

My name is Erik