Gay Marriage (Again)

[Skeptic]

First of all, to make something clear: I oppose gay marriages, yes; but here, I am not opposing the fact of gay marriages (whether it is good or bad) but the LOUSY ARGUMENTS used to support the claim that it is a good idea.

Let us, first of all, seperate the LEGAL from the VERBAL. What we're talking about here is the LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay unions by granting them the same legal rights as married couples. It doesn't matter what it's called: it can be called "marriage", "gayridge", "elrwerroidasoisadjwe", or "fnoord", for all anybody cares.

Now, the arguments I hear from the pro-gay-marriage side are threefold:

1). The following verbal-to-legal argument:

a). "Marriage" is DEFINED (or should be defined), in English, as "any close relationship" (or the equivalent).

b). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be called a "married couple".

c). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be LEGALLY recognized as married.

2). The "rights" argument: marriage is a right; gay people don't have this right (now); therefore, to end the discrimination against them, marriage should legally be recognized between them.

3). The "racism" argument: marriage used to be restricted to arranged marriages/ marriages between the same race/ etc.; people fought to extend the boundaries of marriage to mixed race marriages and they were right; therefore, those who fight to extend marriage to same-sex couples now are right.

I think that (1), (2), and (3) are all seriously flawed. They all serve a neat rhetorical purpose: they tend to put the opponent on the defensive, apologizing for their "racism", trying to find some reason NOT to include gay marriages in a "definition" of marriage already selected by the opposition, etc. But this is because the flaws in these arguments are easy to overlook.

Here are the flaws:

1). The move from (b) to (c) is obviously illegitimate. Even if "marriage", as a word in English, DOES mean something that inlcudes gay unions, it doesn't follow that what is LEGALLY defined as "marriage" is the same as what is colloquially defined as marriage.

To give an analogy, even if the meaning of the word "cow" mysteriously changed to include dogs, laws governing the movement of cattle would not suddenly apply to Cocker Spaniels. At most, it would mean that the law needs to be amended to read "Cows (excluding canines)" instead of just "cows".

But the move from (a) to (b) is also spurious. What a word means is decided by its USE, not by its "definition". The word marriage is used in a way that does not inlcude homosexual unions--so the word simply DOESN'T MEAN "homosexual unions", period.

To give a "definition" of "marriage" as "loving relationship" (or any other definition that is already rigged to include homosexual unions), and then using this "definition" to prove tha marriage includes homosexual unions is begging the question. It's simply saying "marriage includes homosexual unions, therefore, marriage includes homosexual unions".

Does this mean that use--and therefore meaning--cannot change? Of course not. But it is the supporters' job to, first, show us that the USE of the word "marriage" did in fact change to include homosexual unions, not that it is "defined" that way, and--which is far more important--to show why the LEGAL MEANING of "marriage" should, in consequence, be changed.

It is, of course, legitimate to skip the whole "what the word means in English" argument and go straight to the issue of what legal rights gays should have in unions, whether it's called "marriage" or something else. It is, however, illegitimate to "define" the ENGLISH WORD "Marriage" in a rigged way to include homosexual marriages, and then claim this is a reason for the LEGAL TERM "marriage" to be extended to homosexual unions.

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

Again, if you want to argue that homosexual relations ARE equal, in an essential manner, to heterosexual ones from society's point of view and therefore SHOULD be given the same rights, that's your right; but it is simply false to assert that a relationship being recognized as a "marriage" is a "right", or that it doesn't matter what kind of relationship IS recognized as "marriage".

3). "Mixed-race marriages were also once illegal, so one-sex marriages should be, too."--usually used with the not-so-hidden claim that those who opposed same-sex marriages as as bigoted as those who opposed mixed-rac emarriaged.

But this argument is simply a version of the "Galileo" argument ("They laughed at Galileo and he was right, they laugh at me, I am right".) The question is whether marriage should leglly be extended to same-sex marriages. The fact that it was wrongly denied to some groups in the past, doesn't mean that it should be given to ALL groups in the present.

For example, "They" were opposed to incest as well as to mixed-race marriages; that doesn't mean that if they were wrong on opposing the latter they also were wrong in opposing the former. Or, "they" were opposed to communism as well as to civil rights; the fact that "they" were wrong on opposing civil rights doesn't mean one should become a communist.

In sum, I just don't see any good arguments for the gay marriage view. The issue is really a matter of FACT, not of definitions, history, or rights: are gay unions, or are they not, essentially equal to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage?

I think they aren't; and all the talk about the "rights" of gay people to marry (there isn't any) or the "definition" of marriage (which begs the question), or the accusations of "bigotry" (which is an ad hominem) is simply beside the point.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Skeptic

But the move from (a) to (b) is also spurious. What a word means is decided by its USE, not by its "definition". The word marriage is used in a way that does not inlcude homosexual unions--so the word simply DOESN'T MEAN "homosexual unions", period.


All right. On the "Amazing Race" (TV Show) two gay guys called themselves married. The show also captioned them as married. I would imagine other gay couple will describe themselves as married. Many of their friends probably describe them as married. By USE, you are singling out people that us the word in a fashion that you agree with. A minority feels otherwise. I believe that with new generations gay marriage will be a reality. Look at polls at what young people believe on it. People opposed to it are fighting a battle they cannot win over time.



This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.


My marriage is not suffering by what gay people do. I feel no less of a bond knowing there are gay people out there in the world that are married.

Lurker

[Tmy]

How about this. Gay Marriage would cost too much. Think about how this new marriage would cause more court traffic (porbate, family) it'd effect taxes, medicare, health insurances, financial aid, medical rights and responsibilites, rights of survivorship, immgration on on and on.. Lawsuits being brought forth against compaines who were not recognizing the union like they do all marriges.

Its create an expensive domino effect through out government and business.

[toddjh]

I think you are misrepresenting 2). It is not that marriage is an inherent right and therefore gay people should be allowed to marry. It is more along the lines of,

1. Straight people currently have the legal right to marry.
2. The Consitution (or equivalent document) guarantees equal protection to all citizens under the law.
3. There are no relevant differences between gay couples and straight couples in the domain of marriage*; there is certainly no legitimate government interest in treating them differently.
4. Therefore, gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, to grant them their Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection of the law.

* This is the most often disputed point in this argument. However, for every argument you give that gay relationships are not "marriage-worthy" (e.g. they tend not to last very long, they can't produce children, etc.), I can point out thousands of heterosexual couples to which the argument also applies.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Originally posted by toddjh

1. Straight people currently have the legal right to marry.
2. The Consitution (or equivalent document) guarantees equal protection to all citizens under the law.


Equal protection gets tossed around alot. Even in the progressive tax arguments!

I dont have children. Is it a violation of equal protection law to give people wh kids a tax break? Im not being treated equally as as a parent.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Equal protection gets tossed around alot. Even in the progressive tax arguments!

I dont have children. Is it a violation of equal protection law to give people wh kids a tax break? Im not being treated equally as as a parent.

Heh, you're asking the wrong guy. I say yes. People choose to have kids, they can deal with it themselves. Leave my money out of it!

Edited to add: The criterion here is the infamous "compelling government interest." You could argue, though I wouldn't necessarily agree, that the government has a compelling interest in making sure children are raised with a stable environment and proper education, and so giving their families extra money will encourage that. Like I said, I don't agree, but I can see where they're coming from.

What's the compelling government interest in treating homosexual relationships different, legally, than heterosexual relationships? That they can't have kids? Tons of heterosexual couples can't have kids, either.

Seriously, what is the compelling government interest in treating them so differently?

Jeremy

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Skeptic
2). The "rights" argument: marriage is a right; gay people don't have this right (now); therefore, to end the discrimination against them, marriage should legally be recognized between them.
The only reason that I think is applicable is the second one, so I'll just defend that one. The other two I've either never heard of or never professed.
2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.I'm curious where you come up with this definition and distinction. What is it, legally, that makes a heterosexual relationship special or better than a homosexual relationship? Tradition, perhaps? If so, that is a poor reason, especially since history has shown us that tradition is not always right.

Regardless, I would suggest that marriage, either heterosexual or homosexual, to a loved one falls under category of the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as suggested by the Declaration of Independance. What American principle or document can you point to that backs your definition above?
This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road. Using racism as an analogy (not to be confused with the third argument you gave), The specialness of the white man suffers if other races (perhaps blacks) are equally recogognized as of the same value. Your school analogy fails because equality is given despite effort or achievment (i.e. on homework and tests). My analogy suggests equality despite factors which are beyond an individual's ability to control like race or sexual preference (or shoe size or hair color or infertility, etc.).

For your school analogy to hold, heterosexuals would have had to achieve something in order to be granted the previlage of marriage that homosexuals have not. Obviously there is no such achievement, unless you care to argue otherwise?
Again, if you want to argue that homosexual relations ARE equal, in an essential manner, to heterosexual ones from society's point of view and therefore SHOULD be given the same rights, that's your right; but it is simply false to assert that a relationship being recognized as a "marriage" is a "right", or that it doesn't matter what kind of relationship IS recognized as "marriage". Then it is not a right either for heterosexuals. I summarize my counter argument as: What legal definition restricts marriage to heterosexuals and why should that definition, if it exists, be maintained?

[Tmy]

What interest do theyhave in createting gay marriage.? It would generate an expensive and confusing legal shockwave through our system.

If im a gay man I can still have a legal marriage. I just have to marry a women. Theres no law saying you have to marry the one you love!!!

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Skeptic
First of all, to make something clear: I oppose gay marriages, yes; but here, I am not opposing the fact of gay marriages (whether it is good or bad) but the LOUSY ARGUMENTS used to support the claim that it is a good idea.



The only "lousy arguments" I see are your weak justifications for your own prejudice.



Here are the flaws:

1). The move from (b) to (c) is obviously illegitimate. Even if "marriage", as a word in English, DOES mean something that inlcudes gay unions, it doesn't follow that what is LEGALLY defined as "marriage" is the same as what is colloquially defined as marriage.



I don't know who would make the argument that because a word is used a particular way that it should be legally recognized that way.

However, intent IS a very important element to laws, and if the intent of homosexual marriage is a committed relationship with all the same intentions as a heterosexual one, I don't see why they need to be differentiated.



Does this mean that use--and therefore meaning--cannot change? Of course not. But it is the supporters' job to, first, show us that the USE of the word "marriage" did in fact change to include homosexual unions, not that it is "defined" that way, and--which is far more important--to show why the LEGAL MEANING of "marriage" should, in consequence, be changed.



How many people have to use the word marriage in that context before it becomes the new meaning? I can assure you that amongst my peers it is commonly used in such a way.



2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.



It is a confirmation of a level of commitment in a relationship. Any heterosexual couple can live together as well. Why do you suppose THEY would want to get married?

I'm all for legalizing polygamy and incest amongst consenting individuals as well. Why not?



This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.



What is so "Special" about the marriage between a man and a woman that would be "less" special between two men or two women? What is the significant difference that makes it less special for two men to commit to each other for the rest of their lives?



Again, if you want to argue that homosexual relations ARE equal, in an essential manner, to heterosexual ones from society's point of view and therefore SHOULD be given the same rights, that's your right; but it is simply false to assert that a relationship being recognized as a "marriage" is a "right", or that it doesn't matter what kind of relationship IS recognized as "marriage".



I for one don't consider marriage a right. I'd be happier if the Government didn't recognize marriage AT ALL.



3). "Mixed-race marriages were also once illegal, so one-sex marriages should be, too."--usually used with the not-so-hidden claim that those who opposed same-sex marriages as as bigoted as those who opposed mixed-rac emarriaged.

But this argument is simply a version of the "Galileo" argument ("They laughed at Galileo and he was right, they laugh at me, I am right".) The question is whether marriage should leglly be extended to same-sex marriages. The fact that it was wrongly denied to some groups in the past, doesn't mean that it should be given to ALL groups in the present.


HUH? What the hell does the Galileo argument have to do with this claim? Nobody is claiming they are right simply because they are being mocked or rebuked or denied.

There is a definite parallel between mixed race marriage and same sex marriage.


For example, "They" were opposed to incest as well as to mixed-race marriages; that doesn't mean that if they were wrong on opposing the latter they also were wrong in opposing the former.



Provided that the incestuous couple were both consenting adults, I see no problem with it.



Or, "they" were opposed to communism as well as to civil rights; the fact that "they" were wrong on opposing civil rights doesn't mean one should become a communist.



So let the argument stand on its own. How is same sex marriage so different than mixed race marriages? Both are/were reviled in their time and are denied.

If anything, it's the anti-gay marriage people who emphasize how similar these two things are, since they use the same kind of arguments that would be used to deny mixed race marriage.



In sum, I just don't see any good arguments for the gay marriage view. The issue is really a matter of FACT, not of definitions, history, or rights: are gay unions, or are they not, essentially equal to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage?



I see no reason why gay marriages whould not be recognized legally the same as any other kind of marriage. Tell me why they shouldn't be, because I'm SERIOUSLY having a hard time comprehending why you would deny them.



I think they aren't; and all the talk about the "rights" of gay people to marry (there isn't any) or the "definition" of marriage (which begs the question), or the accusations of "bigotry" (which is an ad hominem) is simply beside the point.

WHY don't you think they are? What makes them "lesser"?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
What interest do theyhave in createting gay marriage.? It would generate an expensive and confusing legal shockwave through our system.

*shrug* That's no different from heterosexual marriages. If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, I can respect that. Hell, in a lot of ways I agree.

But if you're going to grant a legal right to one class of people while denying it to another, you have to show that there is a compelling government interest in treating those two groups differently.

So, again, what is it?

If im a gay man I can still have a legal marriage. I just have to marry a women. Theres no law saying you have to marry the one you love!!!

Sure. And once gay marriages are legal, a straight person is likewise free to marry someone of the same sex. What's your point?

Jeremy

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about this. Gay Marriage would cost too much. Think about how this new marriage would cause more court traffic (porbate, family) it'd effect taxes, medicare, health insurances, financial aid, medical rights and responsibilites, rights of survivorship, immgration on on and on.. Lawsuits being brought forth against compaines who were not recognizing the union like they do all marriges.

Its create an expensive domino effect through out government and business.

This is a poor argument against gay marriages. Straight marriages cost money for the same reasons, and they'll probably always cost more money per marriage because child custody battles are always going to be more prevalent among us breeders. As a society, we have decided that the costs associated with straight marriages are worth the benefits, namely the idea that marriage helps hold the fabric of society together. The thing is, that argument works just the same for gays as well. Gay people are part of our society. And the gay community is healthier (both in a psychological sense and in a literal physical health sense) when most gays are in committed, long-term relationships. That's the kind of behavior we should encourage. We encourage it for straight people, so why NOT encourage it for gays? This is not, in my opinion, a constitutional issue - hell, I don't even think marriage is a constitutional right for straight people. It's a practical issue. Gay marriages just make sense.

[bignickel]

From "Tom the Dancing Bug":
http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2003/08/09/

George Bush:
The Bush administration will not allow those promoting a 'Gay Agenda' to subvert the institution of marriage -- to change it's traditional definition: An exchange of property arranged by the parents of strangers!

That's why we introduced the Defense of Traditional Marrage Act.

This is how marriage started centuries ago-- and this is how we're keepin' it!

§2.01. The Parents shall arrange for the Bride, no younger than 12 years of age, to become the possession of the Groom, with a Dowry of no less than three livestock animals.

§2.02. Marriage by abduction is legally proscribed, although if the Groom later pays a Bride-Price, it will be recognized.

§2.03. Among Nobility, Marriages may be arranged between Reigning Families for the purpose of reinforcing geo-political alliances.

[Tony]

The question isnt "Why gay marrage?", the question is, "Why not?".

[Some Friggin Guy]

I hear a lot of people talking about "if gays can marry it will lessen the value of marriage in general."

Frankly, I find it would cause no degredation in my marriage and anyone who feels their marriage would be lessened, probably doesn't take their marraige seriously enough in my opinion.

And, personally, I find the following quote more of a danger to the sanctity of marriage than anything the "gay agenda" could possibly do.

If im a gay man I can still have a legal marriage. I just have to marry a women. Theres no law saying you have to marry the one you love!!!

[Earthborn]

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president.Correct. Marriage is not a right: it gives rights. Rights that are very hard to attain for same-sex couples, even though they are just as important to them as to different-sex couples. I posted this on another thread, but it is just as relevant here:What we should ask ourselves instead is this:
If a child is living with a parent and a step-parent and the parent dies or is otherwise unable to care for it anymore, should the child be protected to be able to continue to be cared for by the step-parent, regardless of the step-parent's gender?
If two people live in a very close relationship, and one of them must be taken to hospital, should the other be allowed to visit this person as if he/she is family, regardless of gender?
If two people live in a very close relationship, and one of them must be taken to hospital and cannot communicate him/herself anymore, and an important health decision needs to be made, should the other, regardless of gender, be allowed to make that decision for him/her, and should the hospital treat this decision as if made by close family?
If two people live in a very close relationship, and one of them dies, the other is left alone with many of the same costs they both shared together, should the other be entitled to part of the inheritence as if a family member, regardless of his/her gender?If you say 'yes' to any of these questions, then you cannot logically be against same sex marriage, even if the idea itself makes you uncomfortable. If you are against same sex marriage, then you will have to say 'no' to these questions.Those are the questions you should ask yourself, Skeptic. The definition of the word 'marriage' is irrelevant, just as whether marriage is a 'right' or not.

Also note that if you think about the issue in terms of these questions, you will see that allowing same-sex marriage does not necessarily open the door for incestuous marriages. Family members already have many have these rights without being recognized as married.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Let us, first of all, seperate the LEGAL from the VERBAL. What we're talking about here is the LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay unions by granting them the same legal rights as married couples. It doesn't matter what it's called: it can be called "marriage", "gayridge", "elrwerroidasoisadjwe", or "fnoord", for all anybody cares.

It's not about the word. Gotcha.

Now, the arguments I hear from the pro-gay-marriage side are threefold:

1). The following verbal-to-legal argument:

a). "Marriage" is DEFINED (or should be defined), in English, as "any close relationship" (or the equivalent).

b). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be called a "married couple".

c). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be LEGALLY recognized as married.

2). The "rights" argument: marriage is a right; gay people don't have this right (now); therefore, to end the discrimination against them, marriage should legally be recognized between them.

3). The "racism" argument: marriage used to be restricted to arranged marriages/ marriages between the same race/ etc.; people fought to extend the boundaries of marriage to mixed race marriages and they were right; therefore, those who fight to extend marriage to same-sex couples now are right.

Not one of these is my argument. These are poorly constructed strawmen. If you wish to refute my argument, I will make it myself in my words.

I think that (1), (2), and (3) are all seriously flawed. They all serve a neat rhetorical purpose: they tend to put the opponent on the defensive, apologizing for their "racism", trying to find some reason NOT to include gay marriages in a "definition" of marriage already selected by the opposition, etc. But this is because the flaws in these arguments are easy to overlook.

The purpose of the arguments are to support a position. Nothing more. If you end up realizing that your opposition to gay marraige is based more in bigotry and fear than in reason from listening to my arguments, that is not my problem.

Here are the flaws:

1). The move from (b) to (c) is obviously illegitimate. Even if "marriage", as a word in English, DOES mean something that inlcudes gay unions, it doesn't follow that what is LEGALLY defined as "marriage" is the same as what is colloquially defined as marriage.

Duh! Marraige has been legally defined by the federal government as a union between a man and a woman. The issue is the injustice and unconstitutionality of that definition.

But the move from (a) to (b) is also spurious. What a word means is decided by its USE, not by its "definition". The word marriage is used in a way that does not inlcude homosexual unions--so the word simply DOESN'T MEAN "homosexual unions", period.

To give a "definition" of "marriage" as "loving relationship" (or any other definition that is already rigged to include homosexual unions), and then using this "definition" to prove tha marriage includes homosexual unions is begging the question. It's simply saying "marriage includes homosexual unions, therefore, marriage includes homosexual unions".

It's not the word, it's the meaning of the word? You can keep going round and round like this but you aren't going anywhere. As far as the government is concerned marraige is defined by the rights it bestows on those who have entered into it. The government has no interest in what your relationship means to you or wether or not your church approves or if you consider Kool Whip a marrital aide. The government's interest is financial and regards your leagal rights as spouses to each other. Because there is no practical, observable or demonsterable difference between marraiges involving both genders and those involving only one gender, there is no reason what so ever to call a legal, gay union anything but marraige.

Does this mean that use--and therefore meaning--cannot change? Of course not. But it is the supporters' job to, first, show us that the USE of the word "marriage" did in fact change to include homosexual unions, not that it is "defined" that way, and--which is far more important--to show why the LEGAL MEANING of "marriage" should, in consequence, be changed.

Irrelevant and also wrong in that there is tons of evidence indicating that the word marraige in the vernacular does apply to gays and is frequently used to refer to gays. Furthermore, applying the word to gays does not change its definition any more than the definition of chair is changed if one uses one at a desk rather than at a table.(thanks for the analogy)


It is illegitimate to "define" the ENGLISH WORD "Marriage" in a rigged way to include homosexual marriages, and then claim this is a reason for the LEGAL TERM "marriage" to be extended to homosexual unions.

No one has done that.

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

First and foremost, incest carries the risk of bad babies and that is plenty reason for it to be outlawed.

Second, I think the government has no business telling us whom we may marry, whom we may not marry, and under what circumstances. Laws against polygamy and polygeny are in violation of the establishment clause because religiously based morality is the basis of such laws. The feds need to but out of people's bedrooms.

Third, I have already told you that the feds have no compelling interest with the specialness of yours or anyone else's relationship. How is a heterosexual relationship special? Remember if you can't quantify if it, you can not enforce a law based on it.

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

I have nothing to add to the rebuttals to this already posted by others.

Mixed-race marriages were also once illegal, so one-sex marriages should be, too."--usually used with the not-so-hidden claim that those who opposed same-sex marriages as as bigoted as those who opposed mixed-rac emarriaged.

But this argument is simply a version of the "Galileo" argument ("They laughed at Galileo and he was right, they laugh at me, I am right".) The question is whether marriage should leglly be extended to same-sex marriages. The fact that it was wrongly denied to some groups in the past, doesn't mean that it should be given to ALL groups in the present.

You still have not given a reason why anything should be denied homosexuals on the basis of their being homosexuals. Without a quantifiable difference between gay relationships and straight ones the only basis to deny them marraige is because they are what they are.

just don't see any good arguments for the gay marriage view. The issue is really a matter of FACT, not of definitions, history, or rights: are gay unions, or are they not, essentially equal to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage?

Yes.

I think they aren't; and all the talk about the "rights" of gay people to marry (there isn't any) or the "definition" of marriage (which begs the question), or the accusations of "bigotry" (which is an ad hominem) is simply beside the
point.

Why do you think that gay unions are not essentially equal to to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage? Instead of trying to tear down your strawmen make your own argument against gay marraige. We are all ears.(Eyes)

Glory

[corplinx]

privatize marriage, even the ifeminists.com chick likes the idea

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Glory
First and foremost, incest carries the risk of bad babies and that is plenty reason for it to be outlawed.

I agree with the majority of your post, but think carefully about this. First, the risks of birth defects as a result of incest has been found to be somewhat lower than previously thought. I've heard that at cousin-level or beyond, the risk is not significantly higher than with the general population.

Second, would you also argue that carriers of cystic fibrosis or other inherited diseases should likewise be forbidden to marry? Or take me. I don't want kids, period, and I've taken steps to make sure I never have any. Should reproductive issues have any bearing on whether the government recognizes who I want to spend my life with? I hope not, or else my marriage is a sham.

There are some good arguments against incest -- the potential for abuses of power relationships, for instance -- but "bad babies" isn't one of them.

Jeremy

[nightwind]

Pretty much a non issue as far as I see it. Don't see the big deal.

I do hope that gay marriages are more successful than heterosexual ones, with the divorce rate hitting 50 percent plus in heterosexual marriages.

As far as I'm concerned, snore, snore, snore.......

[Glory]

Originally posted by toddjh


I agree with the majority of your post, but think carefully about this. First, the risks of birth defects as a result of incest has been found to be somewhat lower than previously thought. I've heard that at cousin-level or beyond, the risk is not significantly higher than with the general population.

Second, would you also argue that carriers of cystic fibrosis or other inherited diseases should likewise be forbidden to marry? Or take me. I don't want kids, period, and I've taken steps to make sure I never have any. Should reproductive issues have any bearing on whether the government recognizes who I want to spend my life with? I hope not, or else my marriage is a sham.

There are some good arguments against incest -- the potential for abuses of power relationships, for instance -- but "bad babies" isn't one of them.

Jeremy

I beg to differ. I used to live in Santa Rosa, Ca. which municipality had the dubious honour of being the only city to prosecute a couple for incest. They prosecuted the case because the woman was pregnant by her son for the third time. The first two children each had problems which occurred in a very low percentage of the population and which would have had a very low likely hood of occurence if the traits had only been passed on by one parent.

I have serious issues with people who knowingly take this kind of risk with their children.

I take your meaning with cystic fibrosis. I don't claim to know who should and who should not have children but I am comfortable with laws prohibiting incest. Somethings should not be knowingly inflicted on a child. I was appalled when I heard about a deaf couple who utilized genetic manipulation to ensure that their baby would be deaf. I must say that if I knew that there was a good chance that my children would have Cystic Fibrosis or ALD I would get my tubes tied.

Obviously children are not a requirement for a marraige but once we start having children, everything changes. We have responsibilities to our children which are unique. Often their rights trump their parents'.

I know I have strayed into a delicate area. It is easy for me to make a horrible mistake when I start to evaluate lives. That is not what I intend to do and I am confident that you can lob situations at me that I cannot easily deal with. I'll tell you right now that all the thinking I might do is going to make things murkier rather than clearer because I don't want to play God.

Suffice to say that I think the that the risk of bad babies is a reason to ban incest. The potential for tragedy is too high.

Glory

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Glory
I beg to differ. I used to live in Santa Rosa, Ca. which municipality had the dubious honour of being the only city to prosecute a couple for incest. They prosecuted the case because the woman was pregnant by her son for the third time. The first two children each had problems which occurred in a very low percentage of the population and which would have had a very low likely hood of occurence if the traits had only been passed on by one parent.

But you can't form a rational opinion based on an isolated incident. Normal, everyday heterosexual relationships are no stranger to tragedy either.

I have serious issues with people who knowingly take this kind of risk with their children.

I agree, but a) stopping relatives from marrying won't stop them from living together, having sex, or getting pregnant, and b) I don't really think allowing them to marry would particularly encourage it. I mean, who wants to sleep with their brother anyway? *shudder*

I must say that if I knew that there was a good chance that my children would have Cystic Fibrosis or ALD I would get my tubes tied.

Hell, I considered telling my doctor I was a CF carrier because that was the only way he'd consider performing a vasectomy at my age. :P

Obviously children are not a requirement for a marraige but once we start having children, everything changes. We have responsibilities to our children which are unique. Often their rights trump their parents'.

I agree it's a tricky situation. I'm probably a bad person to talk to because as someone who is very firm about never wanting kids, I get frustrated when people automatically assume that a marriage entails children, or vice versa. I just think about how I would feel if I had been forbidden from getting married because of some reason that couldn't possibly apply to me.

Jeremy

[Upchurch]

Incidently, I don't buy the slippery slope argument that, if you let guys marry, you have to let polygammy and incest marriages too. The difference between homosexuality and the other two are children. In the one, legal custody of the children becomes monsterously complex and in the other, the health risks for a child are at issue.

Homosexuals, being a two parent couple (either through adoption or artificial insemination or whatever) could easily follow the same laws of custody that heterosexual couples do and do not present any more risks to a child's welfare than a heterosexual couple. If anything, opening adoption to stable married homosexual couples could provide a wonderful source of homes and families for children who have none.

edited to add:
I suppose that an incestual couple who adopts could use the same argument, but we're not talking about incest, we're talking about homosexuality.

[EvilYeti]

Ok, I think I have a solution to this problem.

First of all, I assume the only reason the gay community want legal marriages is for the benefits. Second, I'm exactly sure what these benefits would be, as I'm not married, so if someone could fill me in I would appreciate it.

Here's my idea, why doesn't the gay community, as a whole unite and create their own marriage system? They could have legal contracts to enforce the union and estate, gay marriage licenses would be issued for a cost that would be matched by gay charities to create a benefits pool the couples could draw from.

It seems to me it wouldn't take much for the gay community to put something like this together, I wonder why they haven't done so already.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Here's my idea, why doesn't the gay community, as a whole unite and create their own marriage system? They could have legal contracts to enforce the union and estate, gay marriage licenses would be issued for a cost that would be matched by gay charities to create a benefits pool the couples could draw from.

It seems to me it wouldn't take much for the gay community to put something like this together, I wonder why they haven't done so already.

The problem is that third parties would need to recognize the union in order for it to confer the benefits. Two people can sign anything they want, it still won't give them tax breaks, or automatic property transfer, or the ability to make legal and medical decisions for each other, or even the ability to open each other's mail.

Jeremy

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

as taught to a young Christian in a Christian school by parents and teachers, demonstrating the value system imposed on these young minds


the letter as posted by a grade 6 student on a Christian school's Social Studies bulletin board in my community



Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, On
K1A 02A

My name is X***** X*******. I am in grade 6. I attend X*** X******* School. The only reason I'm writing to you is because I have to.


Why did you sign the Kyoto accord. All it will do is raise taxes for Canadians. If you were making Canada a better country you shouldn't have let the gay's try and pass a law so that they could get married it shouldn't even be in the courts. Its like you almost wanted the gays to be married but you weren't quite sure if you should. You should have had Canada go to war with Iraq than maybe the boarders would have been open for Alberta beef to go across and our farmers wouldn''t have to suffer.


I'd like to congratulate you on the award of "Stubborn Prime Minister". You didn't have to leave a trail behind toshow that you were a Prime Minister of Canada, all that does is make a mess to clean up. Thanks for your time.


From a real Canadian

X*****

[Ian Perez]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I hear a lot of people talking about "if gays can marry it will lessen the value of marriage in general."

Frankly, I find it would cause no degredation in my marriage and anyone who feels their marriage would be lessened, probably doesn't take their marraige seriously enough in my opinion.

And, personally, I find the following quote more of a danger to the sanctity of marriage than anything the "gay agenda" could possibly do.



Here's an easier counterargument. Britney Spears.:D

[Ladyhawk]

Skeptic;

While I respect your opinion, let's be honest. You're agenda isn't that hidden. You say you're opposed to the "lousy arguments" posed by the pro-gay marriage constituency. Well. Have you listened to some of the lousy arguments posed by the anti-gay marriage camp? If not, go back and read your post. It bears a striking resemblance.

It's a fact that there are a lot of paranoid heterosexuals out there who are terrified that gay marriage will destroy our society, remove the sanctity of marriage and damage our children. And why? Because those same folks just can't/won't believe or accept that there are human beings on this planet who are sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex. Period. That's just the way it is.

Heterosexuals have already given marriage a LOUSY reputation with a divorce rate in the 50%+ bracket. What possible further damage could gay marriages do? So much for the sanctity of marriage.... (yawn). As for destroying society, same argument. Gay couples have been cohabitating for years among us and I fail to see where society has been damaged by it. Corrupt our children? Yeah, it's far better to encourage our young people to beat up and murder gay people because they're 'different' or 'going to hell'. That's a healthy environment to grow up in. There is no proof, that I know of, that indicates that a child raised by a gay couple will be gay. And, even if that were the case, so f*ckn what? Who cares?????

Gay marriage will be a reality in the not too distant future,... as it should be. It's not going to open the door to legal polygamy. Marriage is still recognized as a bond between two people , not a dozen. What dictates that those 2 people have to be straight? Polygamy would be the administrative nightmare for the probate courts....not gay marriage. Do the math.

As for those who believe that gay marriage defys the laws of god...well, that's a whole 'nother post, isn't it? ;)

Society has to stop treating homosexuality as a disease that has to be cured. It's not a disease. It's a sexual orientation. A gay person can no more turn off their attraction to someone of their same sex than a heterosexual can turn off their attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

If gays want the right to marry, raise children, and have legal divorces and separation of property, than give it to 'em and be done with it.

Skeptic, do yourself a favor. Seriously. Relax. Take a deep breath, have a drink and remind yourself from time to time: "Gay marriage has nothing to do with my personal success or happiness"

.....because it doesn't.

[WildCat]

Skeptic, you completely miss the most pressing reason for gay marriages. And that is the legal rights that go w/ a marriage - inheritance, hospital visitation, tax benefits, etc.

I don't see how it degrades anyone's hetero marriage in any way. It seems to me people oppose it simply because they think it will somehow curtail gayness, a ridiculous proposition. No one is going to "turn gay" simply because marriage was allowed or ther was more societal acceptance.

Why anyone would get a hair up their a$$ over this is beyond me, the arguments are weak at best. In fact, you could substitute "interacial" for "gay" in them and it's just the same rehashed crap arguments used years ago. Get over it already.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.


So why shouldn’t there be a legal recognition of the specialty of a life-long same-sex relationship?

I think the bottom line is that there are people of the same sex who form life-long loving/sexual relationships who are as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple. I don’t see any reason why there should not be legal recognition of these relationships. Further, I don’t see why they should not be afforded the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I think you’re right in saying that many of the arguments for gay marriage don’t make a lot of sense, but the argument that does make sense is simply that it’s fair.

[Zero]

Saying that gay marriage negatively affects striaght marriage is like saying that you drinking Pepsi negatively affects my enjoyment of Mountain Dew.

[Dorian Gray]

How about this. Gay Marriage would cost too much. Think about how this new marriage would cause more court traffic (porbate, family) it'd effect taxes, medicare, health insurances, financial aid, medical rights and responsibilites, rights of survivorship, immgration on on and on.. Lawsuits being brought forth against compaines who were not recognizing the union like they do all marriges. So TMY, what you are saying is that we should abolish marriage entirely? Think about how this new abolition of marriage would reduce the court traffic........

First and foremost, incest carries the risk of bad babies and that is plenty reason for it to be outlawed. So Glory, what you are saying is that anyone with a high risk of having "bad babies" should be prohibited from reproducing, even if they are married or living together? Think about how this would reduce numbers of disabled and stillborn babies....... Oh yeah, one more thing. "Incest" is defined as having sexual intercourse with a close relative. Incest doesn't even necessarily carry a higher risk of having ANY babies, if proper precautions are taken.

In the one, legal custody of the children becomes monsterously complex and in the other, the health risks for a child are at issue. Upchurch, please refer to the two quotes above. No, I mean my quotes. Regular white-bread custody battles can be monstrously complex, and there can be health risks for children of regular white-bread couples as well.

Protesting homo marriages will eventually be as passe as protesting interracial marriages, and people will have a good laugh over how stupid and backwards everyone was 'back then'. Well, it's 'back then' right now. Don't be stupid and backwards, people.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by toddjh


Seriously, what is the compelling government interest in treating them so differently?


I think the realpolitik question is: Does the government have a compelling interest in allowing gay marriage?

As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of political will.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
So Glory, what you are saying is that anyone with a high risk of having "bad babies" should be prohibited from reproducing, even if they are married or living together? Think about how this would reduce numbers of disabled and stillborn babies....... Oh yeah, one more thing. "Incest" is defined as having sexual intercourse with a close relative. Incest doesn't even necessarily carry a higher risk of having ANY babies, if proper precautions are taken.

Don't discount the stupidity factor. Just because someone could take precautions doesn't mean they will.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
..... It's not a disease. It's a sexual orientation. A gay person can no more turn off their attraction to someone of their same sex than a heterosexual can turn off their attraction to someone of the opposite sex.



If genetic, homosexuality could be considered a disease I'd say. The link to genetics rather than choices is not that clearcut, and abstinence is a possibility.

Anybody here who would argue "race" being a choice rather than genetic? The assertion that race & sexual orientation are similar reasons to require equal protection is not a good argument to me.


A real question is does government have any over-riding social interest in promoting individual morality.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by hammegk
If genetic, homosexuality could be considered a disease I'd say.

...

Anybody here who would argue "race" being a choice rather than genetic?

Why would you argue homosexuality is a disease if genetic? To use your example, is race a sign of disease?

Jeremy

[karl]

Originally posted by Skeptic

[...]This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

If I may take the liberty to shift the burden of proof for a minute, your post boils down to this as your principal argument against gay marriages -- they would make traditional marriages feel "less special." Yeah, it'd be a doggone shame if us heterosexuals couldn't take pride in all the hard work we've put into being straight.

Seriously, I live in a country where gay marriages have been legal for almost a decade. Although I'm somewhat less than thrilled about the concept myself, it doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of our society just yet. But since you're so knowledgeable about the topic, please enlighten me -- what horrible repercussions of this law have I missed?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by toddjh


Why would you argue homosexuality is a disease if genetic?

dis·ease n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/


To use your example, is race a sign of disease?


No. Is it to you?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by hammegk
dis·ease n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

So which is homosexuality? Pathological? Clearly not. Abnormal and harmful? Abnormal, maybe. But with 10% of the population gay (and with a hell of a lot more people who could be described as bisexual), you'd be hard pressed to make that case. Harmful? Only because of the social context. Unless you're arguing for the existence of "social diseases" (euphemism aside), I don't see how homosexuality falls into those categories.

No. Is it to you?

Of course not. Although, using your definitions above, I think you could make just as good a case that being black in the U.S. is a disease as you could for homosexuality: blacks are a minority (i.e. abnormal) and tend to be economically disadvantaged and sometimes discriminated against (i.e. harmful). You are interpreting your definitions overly broadly.

Jeremy

[Dorian Gray]

I would add to Todd's comments by asking you to define the baseline that we would compare everyone to genetically. In other words, what genetic makeup would constitute 'normal', so we could determine what constituted a 'disease'?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.
The only "speciality" I can think of that applies here is procreation between the two partners in the marriage, which is obviously a pants claim of "speciality", because if true it would render all marriages between couples who, by choice, situation or biology, don't procreate as illegal. But I don't remember that in the marriage contract I signed.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by hammegk


If genetic, homosexuality could be considered a disease I'd say. The link to genetics rather than choices is not that clearcut, and abstinence is a possibility.

Using that logic, one could argue that heterosexuality is a disease as well. You explain that homosexuality could be classified a disease because it's 'abnormal'. (See Dorian Gray's question on what the baseline is for 'normal') As for abstinence, are you suggesting that this would be a way to control the disease? I would think abstinence would do more harm than good. Remember, there are homosexuals who were abstinent for years , believing themselves to be abnormal and thinking that abstinence or engaging in marriage with a straight person would 'cure' them. I know of several who did such; even had kids, but ended up divorcing, anyway. As I said before, it's not a switch one can turn off.

Anybody here who would argue "race" being a choice rather than genetic? The assertion that race & sexual orientation are similar reasons to require equal protection is not a good argument to me.

Wait a second. So, on the one hand, you doubt that homosexuality is genetic but that, if it is, it shouldn't come under equal protection just like race, which is genetic. Why? (Let me guess...this is where the "coz homosexuality is a behavior that can be controlled" argument comes in..right?) As for the argument that homosexuality is a choice, I've got to ask why anyone would opt for a lifestyle that denies them so many basic rights and subjects them to such ridicule?

A real question is does government have any over-riding social interest in promoting individual morality.

[i] Fostering understanding and acceptance of all members of society is admirable and should be the goal of every government. I'm curious to know what over-riding social interest do you think there could be? Do you think there is some hidden agenda at work here?

[Upchurch]

If politicians were really worried about protecting the sanctity of marriage, why aren't they proposing constitutional amendment outlawing divorce? There are far more divorces in this country than there are gay couples wanting to be married.

Just a thought....

[Thanz]

Considering that Canadian courts have recently found in favour of gay marriages, I thought I wuld offer a Canadian legal perspective as to the rationale behind the ruling.

First, the analysis under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is done in two stages: first, it is determined whether there has been a violation of a Charter protected right. Then, there is an analysis as to whether the particular violation can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

So, for homosexual marriage, the right alleged to be violated is equality rights:15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The discrimination does not have to be based on one of the listed factors. Sexual orientation has been found to be analogous to the things that are listed, and it doesn't matter if it is genetic or a choice. Either it is genetic, and unchangeable, like race or it is a choice that involves basic life decisions, and is only changeable at possible great personal upheaval, like religion. Either way, under the Charter you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The law that was challenged was the common law definition of marriage, which was "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others". The Court determined that this definition denied equal benefit of the law (marriage) to homosexual couples on the basis of sexual orientation. To me, this is an easy decision - it boils down to "Can they get married? No. Why? Because they are gay." Simple.

The real action is under section 1 of the Charter, which provides that:1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So, rather than have to argue (for example) that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not "speech", the government is afforded the opportunity to justify the law that bans such speech.

However, the onus is on the Government to prove that the violation is "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society". This is very important. The government has to rigourously prove that there is a justification for the law, and if not, it must be scrapped.

Therefore, in Canada at least, the question is NOT "Why gay marriage?", but it is very much "Why not gay marriage?". Thus far, no one has been able to show why gay people should not be married.

Can you, Skeptic?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Quebec's Top Provincial Court: Why not gay marriage? (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/19/canada/gaymarriage040319)


Hendricks and Leboeuf hope to wed at the Montreal courthouse next month. They've been together for 31 years.

A lower court ruled in the couple's favour in 2002, but the decision was challenged by some religious groups. On Friday, Quebec's Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling, saying the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory and unjustified.

In 2002, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman was unjustified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms



Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Oh, no, it is an ever fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of Doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.


-written by some guy called Bill

[WildCat]

I've now changed my mind on gay marriage. It will lead to much worse. Proof: (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=4605337)
PANCHPARA, India (Reuters) - A 25-year-old Indian man has married his 80-year-old grandmother because he wanted to take care of her.

...Last June, a nine-year-old Indian girl was married to a dog near Calcutta after a priest told her parents the wedding would ward off evil.









;)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Quebec's Top Provincial Court: Why not gay marriage? (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/19/canada/gaymarriage040319)




Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Oh, no, it is an ever fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of Doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.


-written by some guy called Bill
Omigod, I'm absolutely obsessed with that poem. I recite it to someone, preferably female, at least once a day. Took me five years to understand it completely and figure out how it should be spoken. As perfect a piece of writing as has ever been writ.

[subgenius]

Leave it to the states, unless you need a distracting wedge issue:

"Vice President Dick Cheney, who argued during the 2000 presidential campaign that the issue of gay marriage is best left to the states, said Friday he would support a presidential push to ban same-sex marriage."
http://www.denverpost.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,36%257E11676%257E1881360,00.html

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If politicians were really worried about protecting the sanctity of marriage, why aren't they proposing constitutional amendment outlawing divorce? There are far more divorces in this country than there are gay couples wanting to be married.

Just a thought....
Good idea.....let's make it truly til death.....make people think a bit.
And of course, in the meanwhile, we're all now waiting for the first gay divorce.