Gay Marriage - a secular view

---

Have I told you lately how much I love you Scotty? heheYou have a beautiful way of stating what I so hard try to express. I wish I had your fluent skills.

In reply to: You are missing the big picture. Our right to marry whom we WANT to marry is being infringed on. To be fair, (assuming the right to marry whoever you want even exists in that form) everyone's right to marry who they want is infringed on in one way or another. For example: a) I love a woman I just met and want to marry her, and it is mutual. I am not allowed to marry her though, because I am already married. Where do we get the arbitrary rule that says I can only be married to one woman? There are other countries where I could have more than one wife. b) I am in love with a beautiful and mature woman who wants to marry me, but who happens to be 13 years old. I am not allowed to marry who I want. The point being, there are all sorts of legal restrictions on marriages that otherwise fit the definition of the term. Do you think you should be exempt? I doubt it; you seem like a reasonable and fair person, and claiming to be exempt from a law isn't a reasonable or fair thing. The case of gay marriage is even more particular though, because there is no law against gay marriage. What we have instead is no provision for it. It's like me insisting on being called "white". It's not a crime; it's just...wrong (factually, not morally). In reply to: My right to marry someone who I can and do love IS being infringed upon. I don’t see a solution is marrying someone of the opposite sex just to marry… I want to marry someone I love, someone of the same sex. I don't believe that right exists in that form. I've shown above examples of why loving someone doesn't necessarily qualify one to marry them, and that the right to marry is a restricted right for all of us.I sympathize; I really do, but I don't see that love has all that much to do with the institution of marriage other than serving as an indicator we use in the Western world of a potentially good match.I have to ask again, if you are with the person you love, what is it that makes marriage so important? It's a social institution first and foremost. It benefits society as a whole by serving functions that have been gone over in detail. It engenders social recognition of an existing relationship and it triggers a number of rights and responsibilities from a legal standpoint. On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the relationship between the man and woman involved. They could love each other and be married; they could hate each other and be married. They could not know each other and still be married. They could share a name, or not. They could be having sexual relations, or not. None of these have anything to do with what a marriage truly is or what it does. What benefit do you think it would convey to you? In reply to: How does a gay relationship now contribute to stability in society? Assuming you meant "not" instead of "now", I can't really go over all of this again. We may have to disagree on this point, but I've gone over and supported why I believe marriage between a man and a woman serves society. If you don't agree, then you don't. That's okay. In reply to: It’s like we cannot win. At one turn we’re being told we’re unstable for society because people THINK we switch parents frequently (In truth we don’t switch anymore than straight people so), but yet we want to have marriage to prove and show there are just as many of us that desire a stable home life with children and yet again we are being told homosexual couples don’t contribute to the stability of the society. How do we win?? Not contributing to the stability of society isn't really all that important. A lot of relationships don't, and that doesn't make them bad in any way. It just means they don't serve that purpose.Marriage will not prove "there are just as many of us that desire a stable home life with children". Living in a stable home life with children is what will prove that. Marriage neither provides it, nor is it needed to have it. If "winning" to you is having a stable home life with children, then you already have what you need to win. You just need to do it, kind of like Nike says. In reply to: But what you cannot get from the stability of the relationship is the tax incentives, being on each other’s health insurance; all the basic things you get from having the legal document of marriage. Tax incentives? Not really. Most, if not all of the financial benefits that come from being married happen when one partner dies. Joint accounts, social security and property ownership rules make the transfer of assets a bit simpler if you are so foolish as to die without a will, but even then any lawyer worth his salt will advise you to have a will. I do, and so does my wife. We keep them updated too. In terms of income taxes, it is cheaper NOT to be married in 9 out of 10 cases. I itemize and I know this for a fact. Until the "marriage penalty" was compensated for back in 2003 (temporarily!!), marrieds paid a LOT more in taxes than a couple living together but not married. Take a look at this link if you doubt this. Medical benefits and medical determination rights are an area of some inequity, I agree. Still, there are more companies every day that extend medical benefits to gay partners that are not available to non-gays, and I contend that any case where a living will or a medical power or attorney is thrown out simply because the partner is gay is a clear case of discrimination. Legally, there is zero difference between a properly executed medical power of attorney and the medical determination rights granted by a marriage, and I find it outrageous that one might be nullified but not the other. THAT is what needs to change. It's also the reason I support civil unions and gay adoption. Their time has come.

Do you think you should be exempt? I doubt it; you seem like a reasonable and fair person, and claiming to be exempt from a law isn't a reasonable or fair thing.Yes I do, sorry. Homosexual adults are not asking for anything more than heterosexual adults are asking for. You’re A and B examples don’t fly with me. I am not asking for multiply spouses or to marry someone underage. Those are quite HUGE differences in the examples you have when compared to homosexual marriage.I am not saying love is a huge deterrence on what should be classed as marriage. I was just using the example to your response on how we (homosexuals) can get married. MOST people get married on the fact they love the person and wish to spend their life with them. In any case, more of the point should be classed by the fact we are tax-paying citizens of this country and should receive full equal benefits.Scotty pointed out some great points, which I don’t want to steal. But his scenario of Dave and Bob is a very good example of what allowing gay marriage would help in society. Sadly enough there are many stories and situations out there that are just like the Bob and Dave scenario.>Not contributing to the stability of society isn't really all that important. A lot of relationships don't, and that doesn't make them bad in any way. It just means they don't serve that purpose.Than why not allow gay marriage? If contributing to the stability of society isn’t important, than it seems like a pointless debate. Though I am confused now because I thought of one your points were stability?>It's also the reason I support civil unions and gay adoption. Their time has come.Yes out time has come for MARRIAGE and gay adoption. There was a time when I was okay with them just creating civil unions and being done with it. But the more I thought about the idea and weighted it… I don’t like it. We shouldn’t be forced to feel difference and have something that would point us out legally as different. Though to a straight person a gay person is “different” but to us we’re normal, and I in no way support anything that would intern create an issue of division.I would venture to say this debate is point in the long run when it comes down to the scheme of thing. We’ll get marriage, and people will see it won’t be the end of the world, society will functions as normally as before and the moon won’t explode.

I think if you looked at the family structure as deeply as you've apparently looked at the social structure of human beings, you'd come to the conclusion that gay adoption (or raising kids at all) is asking for troubled, angry kids in this world...more so than there already are, if it can be believed. I've known several that, as I have mentioned before (though not to you), are the result of having a gay parent. Aside from that, it's just not natural for two people that, without "input" from somebody outside the relationship, can't produce children of their own. It takes both a man and a woman to make kids. I think there's a good reason for this (beyond the obvious physical ones).I know this thread isn't on adoption or having kids...but I'm not the one who took it onto the tangent.

To Benediction: "Lol! Yea, he tore, Starfish apart!" - It's rather bizarre that you'd make a statement referring to the contents of a post you declare not to have read! It's pretty obvious that you didn't read it anyway, or at least didn't read it with any degree of concentration or care; as if you had you would know that the vast majority of Steve's commentary was not directed towards me at all.

And to everyone else: Gay marriage is one social issue I am very much on the fence about. I just don't consider myself educated enough on the subject to formulate a firm opinion, though I do sympathise with homosexual people who feel hurt that they cannot legally marry. Again though, I consider it outside the remit of my experience to the degree that, if someone in the upper echelons of Irish politics were to, for some obscure reason, hand me the right to decide if this should be permissible in Ireland, I would hand that decision back in a very big hurry and suggest it become subject to a public vote, as I just wouldn't regard myself qualified to make it.

In a lot of the countries of the world the people vote in the politicians and the politicians make all the decisions; thankfully that is not always the case here. In the last ten or twelve years we have had referendums of very divisive social issues, such as abortion and divorce. (Incidentally, for anyone who didn't know, divorce was totally illegal here until it was put to a public vote about twelve years ago) What I'm wondering is, since most of the people contributing to this thread are Americans, how does America deal with socially divisive issues such as this? Do the general American public have a say in the decision making process? I have no idea and would be interested to know.

If American politicians pass the decision making over to the people at times, as is done here, perhaps gay marriage may become the issue at the centre of a public referendum at some future time?

The example you gave certainly has no bearing. The guy cheated on his wife with another guy and left his wife for this other guy and now the child is pissed. I'd be pissed too!That's not the same as being RAISED by gay parents. There have been MANY stories of gay people raising children and there have been no damaging effects on the children.

A gay person with a straight spouse and a practicing gay couple are two different things.

i don't see why a kid having two parents of the same gender would make them damaged in any way. Even if they were raised by a gay couple, the important part is that they are going to be raised by people who will love them and care for them the way a parent should, right?

Well, two gay friends of mine are raising two young kids Thor, and they're doing a great job of it. Two happier healthier kids you'd have to go a long way to find. My only concern is on the issue of reactions to that family structure, and not the family structure itself. What I'm worried about is the issue of teasing in school; the eldest has only just begun school earlier this month. If he does come in for bullying and teasing though, I'd have to lay the blame of that at the door of the prejudicial views that brought it about, and not at the family structure itself. I mean really, how would it be fair to blame the family structure if that situation arose, when it would be the prejudicial views that would be the cause of the problem?

The issue of being raised by two gay parents was never the cause of any tension or hurt to the kids before now, and I think it is very telling that it is only at the point where outside views become introduced that it is suddenly possible that negativity might arrive along also. If everything was fine before now, as it has been, doesn't it say a lot that as soon as the big wide world gets a chance to stick their tuppence worth in, only at that point can any negativity be introduced?

You're information seems vaild. More than I can say for some people here, I can't belive half the stuff that is actually posted. I just asked if you could footnote, the information is good, so I might use it for Psychology! You know, the good stuff :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

The problem with thor's argument is that he has no evidence to support it. His reasoning is based on his intuition and his "moral compass". Would someone point me to a study that shows that having two parents of the same gender is more harmful than having two parents of different genders?There are plenty of kids who are screwed up by having psycho hetero parents. Should we have the government administer a qualifying exam, if an accurate one could be designed, to test the parenting ability of people as individuals and as part of a couple, and only allow people who get a high enough score raise children? Then what would we do if a same-sex couple got a good score? (I know what thor's answer would be: The test would begin with, "Are you part of a same-sex couple?", and an answer of yes would give the test-taker a zero.)To your question, What if the decision to allow gay marriage were up to you or me?, the answer is simple, at least from a libertarian perspective. The folks who claim what a terrible thing same-sex marriage is for society are blowing smoke, because they have no actual evidence. For some, the bible (or their interpretation of it) provides all the evidence they need. My argument is simple: If there is no good reason to take away someone's civil rights, then it is wrong to do so. It is cut-and-dried. If you want to take away a person's or a group's civil right, your reasoning had better be a lot better than that which Lanky presented.John Locke and his compadres of the Enlightenment must be turning over in their graves. People will deprive others of their rights way too lightly. People need to remember that if they can easily take away someone else of their rights, then their own rights are in peril. (Thor, that means that if laws are passed that are hostile toward non-fundamentalists Christians, then someday Christians will be in peril.)

> I just asked if you could footnote

Let me know what you're specifically interested in, and I'll find references.

In reply to: I think if you looked at the family structure as deeply as you've apparently looked at the social structure of human beings, you'd come to the conclusion that gay adoption (or raising kids at all) is asking for troubled, angry kids in this world If it came down to it, I'd have to say this is a lesser of two evils issue for me. I have no real reason to believe that gays are any less able to love and care for a child, or any more likely to be abusive. I understand that the lack of a second gender role model may be a bit of an issue, but I think it pales in comparison to the problems caused by shuffling kids through the foster care system. No matter how good a parent you are, if you aren't a permanent parent and the kid knows it they will never fully trust you, and that scars a child more than anything other than abuse of trust when it's given. Take a look at the issue of "unattached children" and you'll see what I mean.

OldFolks beat around the bush, but I won't. You never explained how same-sex marriage would damage society, especially given that do don't thing that same-sex civil unions, which would be the legal equivalent of a marriage, would not. There seems to be an issue of nomenclature. Also, you don't think that two people of the same sex should be disallowed from having a marriage ceremony (which would pretty clearly be a violation of the First Amendment); just that bad things would befall society if government recognized the marriage.Do you see a problem of consistency here? I'm still waiting for some evidence that the use of the word would harm society. The fact that a same-sex couple is different from a mixed-sex couple is not a reasonable justification for disallowing the recognition of same sex marriages. It's an arbitrary difference until you can present real evidence to the contrary.Whether the government recognizes same-sex marriage is by definition a political question. Whether people like or dislike same-sex marriage is a philosophical question. In either case, the organization of people into bands on the savannahs of Africa is among the irrelevant things you've mentioned. Our constitutional democracy wouldn't have served the needs of the hunter-gatherers, and their organization wouldn't have served ours, to the extent that we know what that organization was, or whether perhaps there were many types of organization.In reply to:The government is a tag-along who used already established and recognized social relationship as a framework to define certain rights and responsibilities that it would recognize as well. That being the case...So you make a premise, and continue as if it were obviously true. What you seem to be missing is that the Constitution was written as it was in order to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, given your logic, it was OK in 1900 that blacks did not enjoy the rights of citizenship that whites did, since it comported with the "already established and recognized social relationship as a framework to define certain rights" [that was some very tortured prose].In reply to:[] it is not the government's role to redefine what a marriage is.In a legal context, it is the government's responsibility to decide what kinds of marriage it will recognize. If you're married, then your spouse will, for example, inherit your property upon your death, regardless of the couple's genders. Defining how inheritance works is a government function. In reply to:I agree, groups don't get to dictate to society what the rule are. Nor do groups get to change what society does or does not recognize. One of the roles of government and law in this country is to ensure equality within that framework.Well then, who gets to decide what the government does? We're not living under the same government we were in 1789, are we? Now blacks are considered to be a whole person, slavery is banned, and women get to vote. The three branches of the government get to decide what the government does, through legislation and through interpreting the Constitution.There's no way that an Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would pass, and I can show you the polls that say so. In fact, the number of people under 35 who have a problem with same-sex marriage is far fewer than the number of people over 35 who do; the culture is evolving. In any case, a conservative Congress was unable to pass an amendment, which would still have to be approved by 2/3 of the states.In reply to:Absent a vote, I don't agree that you can say what the "majority of residents" do or don't have a problem with.The legislature of Massachusetts didn't come close to passing a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In fact, the majority of people polled (in 2005, I think) did not favor the amendment. And so far there is no groundswell to kick out of office the legislators who did not pass the constitutional amendment. Whatever Massachusetts people's opinions are on the subject, it's not an issue that's of great importance in most people's lives, other than that of some religious fundamentalists.In reply to:Then let me see if I can help you understand a bit better. My sensibilities are in no way offended by gay couples and I regard them as normal, without the quotation marks. I have an inlaw who is a lesbian and lived with her partner for around 15 years before they decided to go separate ways, but they remain in contact. They each have a son through AI, and the boys are matter-of-fact about having two moms. My family and I stayed at their home over Christmas a couple times, the same as any other family over the holidays, and it was never, EVER, an issue.Let me see if I can help you understand a bit better. I'm sure that some of your best friends are gay. How you feel about gay people is not the issue. It is the issue of same-sex marriage that seems to offend your senses. Frankly, I don't care whether your senses are offended or not. The important issues is whether we are justified in depriving certain people of certain rights. You have yet to explain why same-sex marriage is harmful to society, whereas civil unions would not be.That is the crux of the issue. Issues about primitive man, etc. are just so much fluff. You can only make a philosophical case, since there is little data on the subject.You then proceed to once again play with the word "marriage". You think that the word "marriage" has a sacrosanct definition (handed down by whom?), so that by definition a same sex couple cannot be married.I have news for you. A couple of hundred of years ago, there were a lot of people who would not define a black man as human. The Constitution did not, unless you think a fraction of a citizen can be fully human. The government just has to say that marriage between two people of the same sex will be recognized, and it's a done deal.In 1800, "communication medium" did not include radio or television. Yet now we have numerous laws to recognize those media, and a government agency to deal with their enforcement. Do you see how things evolve? The Constitution and the body of laws that are sanctioned by it are not static. They are not the Bible. They are not the Koran. They are in effect a living organism.In reply to:Perhaps that's because you are correct in that it doesn't impact my life...It's nice that you're being so thoughtful of others, but whose life does it impact, and how, given that you think that civil unions are OK?In reply to:SteveA> A libertarian would say, If one is homosexual and against same sex marriage, than he shouldn't get married.Perhaps, but that is an example of precisely that social immaturity in my view. I could just as easily say that if you are against drinking and driving, then you shouldn't drink and drive. I think the phrase "no man is an island" is more appropriate here. Ultimately what we do affects others, even if it isn't directly.That is a false analogy! It can be clearly shown that someone's driving drunk will have a detrimental effect on society. It would even put you at risk, if you ever go near a road. But you are putting the cart before the horse. You have not shown how same sex marriage is a detriment to society! It shouldn't be so hard, since it's been going on in Massachusetts for a couple of years. Or do you think it might take generations for the detrimental effect to show up?In reply to:To me it's a matter of ignoring reality in the name of political correctness, and I forsee reality reasserting itself with significant impact some time in the future 20, 30 or even 50 to 100 years from now. So then, the answer to my last question is "yes". The effects might take 100 years to show up (or maybe 200 or 500 years?).In reply to:The truth needs to be faced, not ignored, and the truth is that people will always perceive differences. They need to learn to embrace them, not ignore them, and that way discrimination based on those perceived differences can end. Redefining marriage is ignoring them.Why does the difference mean that same-sex couples' marriages should not be recognized by the government? That is they question you keep begging. It sounds like you're saying that certain people or groups are different from most people or groups, so they should be deprived of some right. Yet you have not made the case that their difference is connected to the deprivation of the right, other than your rigid definition of a word. To you, "marriage" has a specific definition (one man, one woman), yet you recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. You seem to think it's acceptable for them to even call their relationship a marriage. Your problem is with the government's recognition of the marriage. Does that seem fully consistent to you?In reply to:SteveA> I wonder if the original poster answers the phone with, "Hello, I'm a black man..." After all, doesn't the other party deserve to know the truth?In the spirit of helping you with your "something good to shoot for", this is pretty much the only thing you said that I found completely unhelpful. Otherwise, thank you very much for your responses.I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. One of your concerns is that a couple who happened to be of the same sex who claimed to be married would deprive other people of knowing that they were in fact a same sex couple, presumably if the couple weren't seen in person. I don't see how their gender status is any more important for people to know a priori than the color of your skin. They are both in fact utterly irrelevant. Do you think that the government should be a party in providing people information that they can use to discriminate against other people?Just to hammer the point home, you have not demonstrated that same-sex marriage, recognized by the government, would be a detriment to society. You don't think that people of the same sex getting maried is a problem, and you don't think that civil unions among same-sex couples is a problem. Could mixed-sex couples also have a civil union?) Your view is ostensibly secular, but your argument is ultimately a religious one.

In reply to: >>>"Looks like I'm your huckleberry."Okay Doc, and thanks for your responce. Somehow I KNEW you'd get that reference. In reply to: Wouldn't it be in societies interest, for the sake of extending a stabilizing agent to a sizable demographic, to allow marriage between same-sex couples. If the function of marriage is to reduce conflict within society why would that function not apply to same-sex couples? Conflicts are conflicts and it is always in societies interest to minimize them regardless of the participants, their reasons, sexual orientations or situations. It may be true that all conflicts are conflicts, but not all conflicts (or rather sources of conflict) are, or should be dealt with the same way. Marriage reduces only the conflict that may occur between men for a woman, or between women for a man. In my experience gays are more open about such things, and less inclined to get into a fight over it. Many are quite proud of being in open relationships, in fact, the only married gay person I know in Massachusetts regards his marriage in exactly this way; open. Granted it's a small sampling, but there it is. Other types of conflict are dealt with in other ways, typically rules, or laws, or judges. Your Dave and Bob example is something that I peripherally addressed in an earlier post - the potential for discriminatory behavior within the judicial system. It's one of the reasons lawyers are so hated. If Dave has a properly executed will, no ethical judge should permit it to be overturned, but lawyers are often good at clouding issues. THIS is the problem that needs fixing. BTW, those aren't conflicts in the way I was using the term earlier. Those are examples of the conflict resolution system working to defuse potential conflicts. In reply to: As you know, you and I disagree on this, but if the traditional function of marriage was to reduce conflicts within society over sex partners, isn't the modern societal function of marriage to reduce conflict over heir-ship, at least, in as far as marriage functions within our society? That's an interesting theory, but I don't see it. Heir-ship isn't really a function of marriage any more, although it was used in the middle ages for that purpose (one of the many reasons other than love a marriage would be entered into). Inheritances are governed by either wills or default laws, and marriage has little affect. In reply to: Doesn't marriage have the same societal value as a conflict retardant to issues raised outside a same-sex couple as it does to a traditional couple (at least in western tradition)? I don't believe so, although if you can find some backing for this idea I will certainly examine it. Marriage only deals with (ie, it supposedly settles) the issue of who has access to which sexual partner. Whether or not they actually have sex is irrelevant. Among gays, I haven't seen the same conflicts over access to partners, and therefore marriage would serve no purpose. When it comes to conflicts other than the specific one above, marriage has little bearing. In reply to: As I understand the arguments put forth in this thread it is said to be okay and maybe even encouraged, that same-sex couple wishing to unit be granted all the same legal protections as a traditional married couple with the caveat that it not be called a marriage. Is this correct? Not quite. There are a lot of things associated with marriage that have no application to a gay union, such as the assumption of paternity, for one. I see civil unions as being the simple uniting of two people for the purposes of interating with governmental rules and regulations, and the actual nature of the relationship being something that is both private and irrelevant for legal purposes. I see no reason they should be limited to gays either. For example, if I was caring for an infirm parent and they needed medical care that they could not afford, the forming of a formal civil union could allow them access to MY coverage. I see no reason that a civil union has to be identical to a marriage to be the equal of one under the law. In reply to: All of this leads back to the question, if society is going to allow homosexuals to exist within it, isn't in societies interest to use the stabilizing tool of marriage to reduce conflict and bring them more in line with the rest of society, for better societal cohesion? Isn't cohesion achieved by unity, not by separation and isn't the continuation of a cohesive society the ultimate aim? The continuation of a cohesive society is indeed the ultimate aim, but we cannot do that by lying to ourselves about what is the same and what isn't, nor is being homogeneous necessarily an aid to cohesion. Marriage is a very specific institution that serves a very specific, and important, purpose. That purpose doesn't apply to non male/female unions, and so any dilution of the term would be the result of applying it where it serves no purpose. I still think civil unions are a better idea.

> In my experience gays are more open about such things, and less inclined to get into a fight over it.

Feel free to generalize. Given that such a large number of heterosexual couples cheat on their partner (half, or close to it?), maybe the institution of marriage should be retired altogether; maybe a big orgy would be better.

Yes, that was sarcasm. How would you feel about a statement that began, "Since so many young black men commit crimes...", and ended with the idea that it would be justified to take away the rights of young black men in general? Would it be in society's interest to put a radio ankle bracelet on all young black men?

Do you see where chipping away at people's rights gets us?

> the potential for discriminatory behavior within the judicial system. It's one of the reasons lawyers are so hated. If Dave has a properly executed will, no ethical judge should permit it to be overturned, but lawyers are often good at clouding issues. THIS is the problem that needs fixing.

One of the reasons lawyers are so hated? Another sweeping generalization. By whom, and for what reason? Doesn't it depend on whose ox is being gored? How do you propose we fix it? Is litigation reform on your agenda?

Two people who are unrelated and unmarried need to have a will, if they want one to inherit the property of the other. The problem is that they'll need a different will for each state that they live in (federalism, remember?). The wording of the will will have to be correct, or the will will be invalid. For someone who appears to have a sensitivity for the use of words, do you see why you can't just steamroll over that idea? Who will then decide what the will really means?

There are other issues besides wills; things like being a proxy for someone in a medical emergency. Why do people of the same gender who want to couple up and make a life commitment have to be punished by having to deal with another stack of contracts every time they move to a different state?

Marriage solves that problem. There is currently no other solution.

> Among gays, I haven't seen the same conflicts over access to partners, and therefore marriage would serve no purpose.

Once again, feel free to generalize. Gay men are all promiscuous, and marriage would serve no purpose. Change "gay" to "black mean", and you will hear he words of a Mississippi plantation owner in the early 1800's. It's wrong and it's unfair, and I don't understand why you think you can get away with making those bigoted generalizations.

I assume that you understand that there are legal ramifications to marriage. Fidelity may be a biblical issue, but it's not a legal issue, unless used as evidence in a divorce case.

> I see no reason that a civil union has to be identical to a marriage to be the equal of one under the law.

Would you like to enumerate the rights that you would eliminate?

In reply to:

---

The continuation of a cohesive society is indeed the ultimate aim, but we cannot do that by lying to ourselves about what is the same and what isn't, nor is being homogeneous necessarily an aid to cohesion. Marriage is a very specific institution that serves a very specific, and important, purpose. That purpose doesn't apply to non male/female unions, and so any dilution of the term would be the result of applying it where it serves no purpose.

---

Do you think that continual repetition alone makes something true? You have no evidence that same-sex marriage would be a detriment to society, yet you just repeat the same thing, ad nauseum. If I stand on my head, would you then provide evidence to back up your claims? Asking many times hasn't done the trick.

> That purpose doesn't apply to non male/female unions

It the same purposes for same-sex couples that it does for hetero-sex couples. It is a way that the government considers two people to be bound for legal purposes. It deals with issues of inheritance, taxes, medical proxies, health benefits, Social Security benefits, Medicaid benefits, and so on.

You agreed that same-sex couples will marry whether or not the government recognizes the marriage; therefore, same-sex marriage is already a done deal. The important issues, as far as the government is concerned, are legal ones. It boils down to an argument over civil liberties. Apparently, you would gladly deprive some people of certain rights based on your philosophical musings, rather than on any evidence whatsoever.

Honestly, your arguments closely parallel the reasoning of a white racist, circa 1800. The way you talk about (and generalize about) gay relationships reveals your try colors. Thankfully we live in a democracy, and progress happens, so that sort of thing tends to correct itself.

You homos shouldn't get married 'cos thats a hetro word.
I've got a few reservations about this whole black/white marriage thing too.
No I'm not prejudiced, I think you should have almost equal rights to any-one.
And would you gays stop calling each other "faggot", thats our word too.
We can't even insult you anymore.

(If you missed the subtlety, that was sarcasm)

In reply to: OldFolks beat around the bush, but I won't. You never explained how same-sex marriage would damage society, especially given that do don't thing that same-sex civil unions, which would be the legal equivalent of a marriage, would not. This doesn't really reflect what I was saying, since I don't see civil unions and marriages as being the same except in name. My view of civil unions is that they would be far less rigid, and more adaptive to the individuals who enter them. They would not be limited to gays, or even sexual partners.In reply to: Do you see a problem of consistency here? No, but I do see a communication issue. I'm not sure it's a solvable one either. In reply to: The fact that a same-sex couple is different from a mixed-sex couple is not a reasonable justification for disallowing the recognition of same sex marriages. That mixed-sex couples are different from same-sex couples is a given. That marriage needs to be redefined in order to protect civil rights is something I have yet to see even presented, let alone reasonably argued for. In reply to: It is the issue of same-sex marriage that seems to offend your senses. Frankly, I don't care whether your senses are offended or not. No, it's the issue of the redefinition of the institution of marriage that I have an opinion on, which I have chosen to express. It is also becoming clear to me that my expressing this opinion has offended YOUR sensibilities. You may not care about my sensibilities, but it was my hope that the issue could be discussed, even with final disagreement, and leave people unoffended. Additionally, you continue to frame the issue as one of depriving people of rights when I have pointed out with examples that they do in fact have, and occasionally exercise, the exact same rights as everyone else. You have never established that the "right to marry" as defined in several court cases in this country actually exist in the extended form that you present, ie. "the right to marry the person I love", in spite of the fact that I have pointed out, with examples, just why that phrase is subject to limitation by various laws. Given these, I think we have pretty much reached a place where there is nothing to be gained from continuing the discussion between us beyond hurt feelings. We disagree, and that's pretty much it. I have no problem with that.

That mixed-sex couples are different from same-sex couples is a given. That marriage needs to be redefined in order to protect civil rights is something I have yet to see even presented, let alone reasonably argued for. You don't need to justify why someone shouldn't have his rights taken away; you need to justify why someone's rights should be taken away. And the issue is not redefining the word marriage. No one suggests that the goverment require dictionaries to change their entries for the word "marriage". The law needs to change, not the word. The fact that opponents of same-sex marriage who are not motivated by fundamentalist religious beliefs is puzzling.Can you point me to the place in the U.S. Constitution where the word "marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman? You can't? OK. Now also realize that Webster's Dictionary (or the edition that contains only the definition of "marriage" that you like) is not the law of the land. I don't care what your definition of the word "marriage" is. You haven't made a case for why your definition is relevant -- why it should be used to prevent a certain group (actually, two groups, given that there are two genders).And who gave title to the word "marriage" to the opponents of same-sex marriage anyway? The current dictionary definition of marriage is not as restrictive as yours. It used to be that "freeman" didn't include black people in the Southern United States. What gave racists the right to that word?The problem we're having communicating, for the umpteenth time, is that you are unable to provide a shred of evidence to back your position, other then your ideas on the promiscuity of gay men. I ask you, and you make believe you don't hear. You of course offer no statistics. You of course make believe that it's all about homosexual men, and that homosexual women are not an issue. Lesbian couples do exist, don't they? What if it turns out that lesbian couples are more stable than heterosexual ones? What if lesbians are less promiscuous than members of heterosexual couples? Would that knock your workd off its axis?In reply to:Marriage reduces only the conflict that may occur between men for a woman, or between women for a man. In my experience gays are more open about such things, and less inclined to get into a fight over it. Many are quite proud of being in open relationships, in fact, the only married gay person I know in Massachusetts regards his marriage in exactly this way; open. Granted it's a small sampling, but there it is.And many gay men are quite proud of their loyalty and fidelity to their significant other. Likewise many lesbians. Does that compute for you? Many homosexual couples grow old together.In reply to:It may be true that all conflicts are conflicts, but not all conflicts (or rather sources of conflict) are, or should be dealt with the same way. Marriage reduces only the conflict that may occur between men for a woman, or between women for a man. In my experience gays are more open about such things, and less inclined to get into a fight over it. Many are quite proud of being in open relationships, in fact, the only married gay person I know in Massachusetts regards his marriage in exactly this way; open. Granted it's a small sampling, but there it is. How would you feel if I said, "Black men have no respect for the law. Many are quite proud of the time they spend incarcerated. I know a black guy who's in and out of prison. Granted, it's a small sampling, but there it is."What you said and what I said are qualitatively the same. What you don't realize is that, logically, they're both garbage in their implications ("All gay men are..."; "All black men are...").In reply to:Marriage only deals with (ie, it supposedly settles) the issue of who has access to which sexual partner. Whether or not they actually have sex is irrelevant. Among gays, I haven't seen the same conflicts over access to partners, and therefore marriage would serve no purpose. When it comes to conflicts other than the specific one above, marriage has little bearing.I don't know how many times I need to enumerate the legal benefits of a marriage. You just refuse to listen. There is currently no such thing as a "civil union" for same-sex couples except in Vermont, and it's completely pointless. Marriage serves purposes beyond conflict resolution (a whole host of legal purposes), and the legal infrastructure for it is already universal.If you have any sense at all, you will be greatly embarrassed by some of the things you said about homosexual men. And homosexual women? Nothing to say.Women are not the same as men. To wit, they menstruate. They have soft skin. They have vaginas. The difference between a man and a woman should be celebrated. But that doesn't mean that a woman shouldn't be allowed to assume a position in corporate management, a traditionally male domain, does it?That was redundant, repetitive, and redundant. You hope to make truth out of absurdity through repetition. My only hope is to get a response to the points I keep bringing up, but that you keep skipping. To wit, the important one: Do you have a shred of data to back up anything you're saying, or is your secular argument, at its root, really a faith-based argument?

In my experience gays are more open about such things, and less inclined to get into a fight over it. Many are quite proud of being in open relationships, in fact, the only married gay person I know in Massachusetts regards his marriage in exactly this way; open. Granted it's a small sampling, but there it is.I think Steve sums it up nicely on how truly offensive that is. Are you not aware there are many heterosexual couples that have open relationships? What I find interesting is out of all the gay people I know that are coupled, not one of them have an open relationship. I cannot, even thinking back, on all the friends and all their relationships any of them ever having an open relationship. But what I can remember is my friends sister was in an open relationship with another man; a heterosexual relationship. But just because I know of one instance of a heterosexual couple being in an open relationship make me think all heterosexuals are this way? Absolutely not. You are generalizing a class of people, and that shows an amount of prejudice in my eyes. I hope you take those scenarios that Steve gave you and really give them thought.