Gay Marriage - a secular view

---

yea, deffinatly the lognest ever. Why do peope feel the need to deny two PEOPLE marrage,I know the deffiniton of marraige says a man and a woman, but seriously, who wrote the deffinition? i'm gonna guess a pope, a dead pope, meaning that we can twek it a little bit because its our planet and if a deffinition that some dead guy made a while ago interfers with two peoples wanting to express their love for each other through marraig, who are we to say the deffiniton cannot be changed? everything can be changed. this is our world, we own it, we rule it, and yet, we see fit to make up little rules for ourselves that clearly make some peple missrible, why do we do this?

Is anyone going to read that!?I got bored half way through! LOL!

"...as it has been happening for several years in Massachsetts..."LOL...you still don't get it. To be honest, I'm not surprised. Most people can't get past their own preconceived notions to see what it is I'm getting at. What's happening there in Mass. that you spoke of are not marriages...regardless of what you or anybody else chooses to call them. What a marriage is has already been defined, and it can't happen between two folks of the same sex regardless of what is done in Mass. The government does not have the power to redefine something not under its juresdiction. So, what's happening in Mass. is a sham.

I read the post and though long it’s an awesome read.Steve as always, you give the brain a jolt, something I needed on a Monday morning lol.(The rest of this post is not directed at you Benediction, just random thoughts and such)I think what people lose sight of is that homosexual people are humans, and we are citizens of this country. With the whole political, religious points set aside... why make people feel second rate? Why treat them as though they are unworthy of the same treatment? How is the fact of me being gay affecting your life? If I should get married to another man how would this directly affect your every day life?As a gay man living in a free country I should be allowed to live my life without having someone else try and control or tell me what I can and cannot do. If I am going to be forced to pay the same taxes and abide by the same laws, than I should receive the same benefits as a straight person would receive. It still kills me that people have this idea that we are looking for special treatment, when in fact we are looking for the SAME treatment. I personally don’t think that’s a lot to ask. We’re not asking for special laws to be made or special tax breaks because we are gay. We are asking for equal treatment.Lanky, you make comments about “sameness” and celebrating ones differences. What makes your differences as a black man special enough that you should be allowed marriage? Since you are of black heritage and should be celebrating this difference, perhaps you should not be allowed to marry either and go back to your heritage ways and have a tradition African union ceremony? But you are a citizen of this country and you don’t need to do this, which is the point I am making. Your “difference” might be that you are black, but you are still a citizen of this country and are allowed marriage, where I am a citizen of this country, and I am not allowed simply because I love another man. It’s okay to celebrate your differences and be proud of your differences if you desire, but it shouldn’t cost others equal rights in the process.

Funny the sham is called marriage and they get the full benefits as every other citizen of that state. Damn, what a horrible sham.........

Lol! Yea, he tore, Starfish apart! So, Congrats to Steve?It didn't make sense to me. I've read a couple of posts here and there, so I didn't know what he was saying .Btw: Steve, can you try to footnote, please No offence or anything, good info, but might need source!

His post was not meant to tear anyone apart but instead give info and thought.His post doesn't need footnoting, it's well constructed the way it is; it's just lengthy.

Merely to set the record straight.>>>Lanky75 said, in his last post to me, "We started the same place, and we ended the same place. Yes, we took different roads to get there, but to me that doesn't matter. We seem to have agreed that marriage is ultimately responsible for civilization, whichever road it took."I respectfully and completely disagree.>>>Lanky75>>>"I was saying that marriage resulted in less conflict, which in turn allowed larger groups and ultimately the building of civilization. You have just said that marriage allowed for more and healthier children, which made for a larger group able to obtain more resources, and thus build a civilization."You will find I never said "marriage." The crux of my argument was that the ability to better protect and provide for the young helped the rise in our species. Which leads to my conjecture that a homosexual couple can protect and provide for the young just as well as a heterosexual couple. So, the argument that homosexual coupling (where there are an abundance of children or other means to have a child such as surrogacy) fouls the propogation of the species, is wrong.More simply, my argument is that it's not predominately the rules of society but the care of the couple and there is no reason to believe that a homosexual couple is going to be any less caring than a heterosexual couple. Therefor, that, as an argument against gay marriage is flawed.________________________________________________________>>>OldFolks>>>"How would homosexual marriage be changing this? If marriage is about stability and people coming together to raise healthy well adjusted children, what does their sexual orientation matter? If the desired end product is stability and family, how does equality in marriage threaten this? If anything wouldn't it promote stability and family to all of society? If homosexuals are allowed to exist in society wouldn't be logical to extend the tools of stability to their "subculture" and thereby bring it more in line with society?"I noticed that this wasn't addressed and wondered if Lanky75 or anyone else, for that matter, would care to answer it.

"I respectfully and completely disagree."

Why am I completely unsurprised.

And again you add nothing constructive to the debate.. how completely unsurprising. How about you answer the question for Scotty (OldFolks) instead of adding one liner blah-blah's???

I made a great effort in this thread not to make personal attacks. Not to question peoples' motivation. Not to accuse them of having an agenda. Not to call anyone a jerk. I did not perfectly succeed, but I think it's something good to shoot for.You think that "marriage" is owned by a certain group, I think it's not. At one time "freeman" was owned by a certain group. Now it's not. That it was a longstanding tradition in the South in 1800 that black Americans were not freemen did not inherently make it a good thing.Fifty years ago there were people who refused to recognize an interracial marriage. You refuse to recognize a same sex marriage. That's fine, whatever your reasoning or motivation. It's your business. But if you were a government officer, you would be obliged to go through with the motions of recognizing such marriages, if your position required it, or you'd have to resign your position.It's called progress. In a democracy, things change, even though there's rarely unanimity. Someone will always be unhappy. But in a nation of laws, people have to deal with the changes.

Benediction, you are not obligated to read anything here. If a post bores you, then skip it. Or you could just have read the last few lines. And I'm not sure what you needed footnoted. Were there some statistics cited that you have a question about?That long post had nothing to do with going after Starfish, and everything to do with trying to understand the logic behind Lanky's argument.As far as I can tell, it boils down to this: same-sex couples are not the same as hetero-sex couples, so same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.That is the premise, and that seems to be as far as it goes. There was a discussion of how Lanky, as a black man, is different from a white man. It's bad (prejudice), and it's good (differences are to be celebrated). Then there was a discussion of primitive hunter-gatherer man, and a tip of the hat toward polygamy.We are not still living as small bands roaming the African savannahs. We live in an industrial society. I don't see how any of that justifies depriving same-sex couples of the right to have their marriages recognized by the government.This is the bottom line: If you're going to deprive people of a civil liberty, you'd better have a damn good reason to do so.

Hi, and thank you for going to the time and effort to read the prior posts and respond to what you saw in them. I know that a post like your 'long' post takes a lot, and I want you to know that I read every word of it. For the most part it is clear that you understand what I meant, or at least carefully read it, but disagree with it. That's quite alright with me, and in cases like that it would be a waste of both our time for me to reiterate what has already been said. That being the case, rather than respond in detail to each item in your posts, I would like to just answer areas where you have expressed a question or stated that you don't understand what I meant, and just comment on a couple of things I see differently that I haven't specifically or completely addressed before. In reply to: Same-sex marriage is fundamentally a political question. I disagree. It's a social question first, and a political question second. Marriage is about social recognition of a particular type of relationship. The government is a tag-along who used the 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, it is not the government's role to redefine what a marriage is. In reply to: There are many things that we do as a society that are disagreeable to various groups. 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. In reply to: I'm not sure what your issue is with my "postulate". I lived in Massachusetts when same-sex marriages became legal, and for several years after there and in New Hampshire, along the Massachusetts border. Really, nothing bad happened. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. You said, "The majority of residents of [Massachusetts] have no problem with the idea, especially after seeing that the world didn't end when homosexual marriage began". Absent a vote, I don't agree that you can say what the "majority of residents" do or don't have a problem with. In reply to: When I lived in Boston I had neighbors who were a gay couple, owned their own home, worked, slept, cooked dinner, and so on...just like a "normal" couple. and In reply to: I can't for the life of me understand what the problem is, other than your sensibilities are offended. 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. The issue isn't gayness, it's marriage. In reply to: The question is, what is the gain of depriving a certain group of people the right to marry? and (from a separate post) In reply to: Once again, I don't understand how acknowledging people's differences justifies not allowing two people of the same gender to marry. Can't we celebrate our differences in ways that don't deprive some people of certain rights? I don't agree that's the question. Gays can and do marry, and I pointed out the case of former Governor McGreevey specifically to show that this is an invalid claim. I'm sure everyone here knows a gay person who is or was married. Saying that gays cannot marry is the same as saying gay men cannot be biological fathers, also a false claim. The real issue isn't about depriving people of a right since the facts show that gays DO marry, it's about the redefining of an institution. Marriage by definition excludes same sex pairings just as "red" by definition excludes "green". Marriage by law excludes underage and already married couplings as well. You are asking society to change the fundamental nature of an important institution, and I have yet to see a good reason why we should do so. In reply to: I haven't yet discerned a reason that same-sex marriage is a problem for the original poster, other than that mixed-sex marriage is the convention. I don't see how it impacts his life. Perhaps that's because you are correct in that it doesn't impact my life, but then again you are looking for the wrong thing. I'm not so egotistical as to define something as 'good' or 'bad' based solely on it's impact on MY life. I think it would be the height of social immaturity to ignore things just because they don't affect me directly. In reply to: 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. In reply to: There was a discussion about the possibility of a "gay gene", but I don't think that is relevant to the topic of the thread. I agree 100%, as I also said this same exact thing in that discussion. In reply to: This seems to be the crux of his reasoning. The idea of "sameness". I don't understand why it's any more important for people to distinguish a homosexual couple from a heterosexual couple, any more than it's important to distinguish a black couple from a white couple. You are close, but if you don't understand it, well, then you don't. You've apparently read what I've written both in this phrasing and in the "apples/pears" example I gave later on (and I appreciate you taking the time to do so). 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. 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. In reply to: I made a great effort in this thread not to make personal attacks. Not to question peoples' motivation. Not to accuse them of having an agenda. Not to call anyone a jerk. I did not perfectly succeed, but I think it's something good to shoot for. I've seen earlier posts, and I agree that this is a 100% accurate statement. I appreciate the effort. In reply to: 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.

Lanky75 said, In reply to:"Many homosexuals feel that the inability to marry a member of the same sex represents an inequality in terms of civil rights. Many others, including myself, feel that the right to marry represents ONLY the right to join with a member of the opposite sex in a socially recognized union...but which they have no right to change. My reasoning for my view hinges on the value of marriage to the civilization as a whole, as a stabilizing agent..." (Emphasis Added)I replied,>>>"How would homosexual marriage be changing this? If marriage is about stability and people coming together to raise healthy well adjusted children, what does their sexual orientation matter? If the desired end product is stability and family, how does equality in marriage threaten this? If anything wouldn't it promote stability and family to all of society? If homosexuals are allowed to exist in society wouldn't be logical to extend the tools of stability to their "subculture" and thereby bring it more in line with society?"I was just wondering if anybody would care to address my questions, since Lanky75 statements seem to reflect a rather common view. Anybody?

In reply to: "How would homosexual marriage be changing this? If marriage is about stability and people coming together to raise healthy well adjusted children, what does their sexual orientation matter? If the desired end product is stability and family, how does equality in marriage threaten this? If anything wouldn't it promote stability and family to all of society? If homosexuals are allowed to exist in society wouldn't be logical to extend the tools of stability to their "subculture" and thereby bring it more in line with society?"I was just wondering if anybody would care to address my questions, since Lanky75 statements seem to reflect a rather common view. Anybody? Looks like I'm your huckleberry. First of all, you are right that equality in marriage certainly doesn't threaten anything. Second, equality in marriage means having a right to marry that is equal to the right to marry that anyone else possesses. Gay men have been marrying women for years, and these marriages are valid and recognized by both the society and the government, in every way equal to the marriages of heterosexuals.Since marriage means to join with a member of the oppposite gender in a socially recognized union, and there is nothing other than unwillingness to prevent gays from doing just that, their right to marry is not being infringed on.Next, it appears to me that you regard marriage as a source of stabilization within the relationship, and that homosexual pairings in the past were similarly likely to raise children as heterosexual ones. I really don't see that. What I am speaking of is the stabilization marriage provides outside of the relationship, within the society. This is the conflict issue that we have discussed at length, and a gay relationship doesn't contribute to this. Lastly, the stability of a relationship comes from within the relationship itself, with no more than a token contribution from marriage which is not a "tool of stability". If you doubt this, just take a look at divorce rates. Gays can have stable relationships without marriage by simply desiring to have a stable relationship, a solution with a far better outcome than that of a heterosexual couple who expect marriage to cement their relationship and find out just how horribly wrong their expectations are. Stability comes from inside.

Second, equality in marriage means having a right to marry that is equal to the right to marry that anyone else possesses. Gay men have been marrying women for years, and these marriages are valid and recognized by both the society and the government, in every way equal to the marriages of heterosexuals.>Since marriage means to join with a member of the oppposite gender in a socially recognized union, and there is nothing other than unwillingness to prevent gays from doing just that, their right to marry is not being infringed on.You are missing the big picture. Our right to marry whom we WANT to marry is being infringed on. Could I deceive a female and get her to love me and than marry her?? Sure I could do that… but why? 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.>Next, it appears to me that you regard marriage as a source of stabilization within the relationship, and that homosexual pairings in the past were similarly likely to raise children as heterosexual ones. I really don't see that. What I am speaking of is the stabilization marriage provides outside of the relationship, within the society. This is the conflict issue that we have discussed at length, and a gay relationship doesn't contribute to this.How does a gay relationship now contribute to stability in society? 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?? If I am going to contribute to the taxation of this country and me forced to pay like every other citizen than I want the same rights as those who are straight. >Lastly, the stability of a relationship comes from within the relationship itself, with no more than a token contribution from marriage, which is not a "tool of stability". If you doubt this, just take a look at divorce rates. Gays can have stable relationships without marriage by simply desiring to have a stable relationship, a solution with a far better outcome than that of a heterosexual couple who expect marriage to cement their relationship and find out just how horribly wrong their expectations are. Stability comes from inside.I agree that stability does not come from a piece of paper stating a couple is married, but instead comes within the true relationship. 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.

>>>"Looks like I'm your huckleberry."

Okay Doc, :wink: and thanks for your responce.

>>>"What I am speaking of is the stabilization marriage provides outside of the relationship, within the society."

That is exactly what I was speaking of as well. If I implied otherwise it was unintentional. Just to be clear, I am talking of marriage as a tool of stability in society not within a relationship. Therefor my previous questions are germane.

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.

Here is a hypothetical, yet all to real and common, societal conflict faced by same-sex couples. Dave and Bod decide to spend their lives together, they buy a house together, and go about living common uneventful lives, buying cars, taking trip, and trying to save for retirement. One day on the way home Dave gets into a horrible car wreck that eventually leads to his death. Before Dave's death, all of the end of life care decision, for reasons of legality, fall to his sister rather than his partner Bob - conflict. At Dave's death his sister has custody of his body, again for legal reasons, and all the funeral choices are hers not his partner Bob's - conflict. Finally there is the reading of the will Dave has left everything to Bob but Dave's sister contests the will. Bob spends a large amount of money fighting Dave's sister in the end a judge awards her a portion of Daves' retirement and Dave's share of ownership in the house that he and Bob purchased together as their home - conflict, conflict, conflict. Now, if there is a function that could have alleviated these conflict why should it not be instituted. It could have saved thousands in court cost, freed up an overburdened judicial system, reduced the chance of the conflicts escalating, and most importantly honored Dave's wishes with regard to his partner and his estate. Wouldn't the function of marriage as an agent to reduce conflict alleviated most of this? Isn't it in societies interest to see that these kind of conflicts are avoided where reasonably possible?

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? Keep in mind here that I am speaking of marriage strictly in a societal context without regard for any sentimental value it may have to an individual couples relationship or belief system. 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)?

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? With noted exceptions many, on this board, seem to want a same but different status for homosexuals or separate but equal status. Can separate ever be truly equal, in this case since the separation is not a physical one, maybe...maybe not. The question is does it behove society to create a separate classification for a large group of it's citizenry. If society job is to promote cohesion then doesn't a separate classification for it's citizenry seem to run counter to it's intent.

If same-sex couples are extended all the same rights (in honest equality, merely with different nomenclature) that marriage extends to a traditional couple then, does not the debate become, what does marriage mean? If the implications of marriage are duplicated within society, under some new nomenclature, it would seem that would do more harm to the original term "marriage" then allowing same-sex couples to also use the term for their covenants. They're unionized, they're compounded, they're married, they're incorporated. All, societally, mean essentially the same thing but if there is any reverence held for the word marriage it seems to be diluted, at least when alongside invented language that means pretty much the same thing. To my ear that arrangement brings marriage down it does not lift union up. If the sanctity of the term, as it relates to society, is what is of concern isn't it of some concern that there may end up being possibly 50 some different terms for "marriage"? Does that cheapen the word? I don't know.

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?

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.