Redstate

was agreeing with you.

"I support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples."

This is not intended as a threadjack.

....

This honestly is in no way meant to be a pointy stick or to accuse anyone of anything.

Could this same argument have been made about allowing inter race marriage? Could it not have been once said "If we allow the mixing of the races where does it end..."

Again since this could be inflammatory I will say this is not as an accusation,a pointy stick, or an inferance of any kind.

I agree with today's decision that nothing in the state constitution mandates same sex unions but also would like to see civil unions enacted into law by the legislature.

Marriage is a core structure of our society and if a loving caring same sex couple wishes to form such a union then I can't find it in myself to look them in the eye and say no.

When same sex marriages were briefly performed in San Francisco a gay friend from college and his partner married and they are still together today. I wish I could say the same for all my  heterosexual friend's marriages.

To your point about what's to stop further expansion of marriage the simple answer is our duly elected representatives. Today's decision should give us comfort that the judiciary in a very liberal state has put the ball squarely in the legislature's court. So if we as a people decide not to expand civil unions farther than that's where it ends.

I think he is trying to make is that this is not how it is sold to the public. They are disingenous about it. It's all hospital visitation and social security benefits all the time. That's why the gay lobby dropped civil unions like a hot potato. Civil unions they could have. They'd already have them in dozens of states if they didn't abandon them in favor of SSM... but once they get civil unions they know they will never get SSM. All their utilitarian arguments go out the window. It's a very cynical game they are playing.

My appologies

Polygamy has a very long tradition and, it could certainly be argued, should be protected by the 1st amendment (free excercise). You have no such issue with SSM, so there is a much better case to be made for polygamy than SSM. The arguments for SSM are more on par with those for incestous marriage. If we are just going to open it up to all comers and force the state to prove some kind of compelling interest in excluding certain combinations, it doesn't make sense to have a prohibition on that, either.

As far as #5 goes, no, not really. In the one state that has gay marriage, the people had absolutely nothing to say about it.

Re: The point is that if a legislature votes to allow same-sex marriage because of the arguments put forth in their favor, they must either also approve other marriages that can use the same arguments, or the courts will force them to do so.

This has already been disproven by the fact that legislatures have long since allowed interracial marriage, and various other once-forbidden forms of marriage, but this did not create a "slippery slope" to polygamy. Indeed, by your logic any form of legal marraige should create such a slope since you seem to be saying "If we allow marriages of Form X then we must allow marriages of Form Y". Moreover, we are dealing with legislative acts where precedent is largely irrelelvant: the fact that we allow 18 years old to vote, for example, does not impel us to extend the vote to 12 year olds as well. Or: the fact that we have invaded Iraq does not mean that we will capriciously invade some other country (say France or Thailand) next. In order for a slope to slip there must be a very high degree of similarity between the things we are comparing. "Apples to oranges" is never a valid argument in this area, and I reiterate a point which no one has yet argued againt: number and gender are two vastly different categories and there is no logical fraternization between them.

As it's clear in the earlier thread, I support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. But there is NO WAY what the NY Supreme Court said was outdated and bigoted. Not only because they didn't say they believed it, but because the general notion that children grow up in most cases better in stable families with a mother and a father is, well, true.

Oudated and bigoted. Not only does he have a reading comprehension problem, he's just a cheap name-calling reactionary. Or does my calling him that make me a name-calling reactionary as well?

is a controlling legal decisison.

...the antithesis of a small group's "regular" sexual intimacy.  You're using a word purposefully to marginalize their existence.

As has been said elsewhere, penalties for non-reproductive sexual acts began to be phased out with witch-burnings. (the latter we are sorely lacking in today's society) ...

...so I will ask, by what rationale do we seek to erect obstacles to an otherwise mundane civil contract just because they're "not normal?"

Re: SSM, on the other hand, encourages something that is not in society's interest.

It encourages sexual continence and fidelity which is ALWAYS in society's interest.

Its nice to hear judges issue a ruling on a contentious social issue w/o contempt for us rubes.

Procreation used to be the main reason for marriage.  

We used to believe that marriage wasn't just a legal contract. It was a sacrament.  If you didn't want a family, why get married?   You could just shack up and have sex.  

Must Still Be Constitutional.

If it is decided that SSM is legal, then that little part in the Big Laws about discrimination would DEMAND that the Legislature allow all the others.

But it is ridiculous to assert that it is normal behavior. The fact that the vast majority of the population does not participate in the activity means it is not normal. The fact that the relationships have existed in the past is irrelevant. So has cancer. So has murder. So has drug use. So have albinos. None of these would be considered normal activities or conditions. Normality has nothing to do with how long something has been around... it has to do with prevalence.

Worry not, I'm as freedom-loving as the next megalomaniac.  I simply recognize that it is the function of politics to decide whose morality gets written into law, and I want it to be mine.  You want it to be yours.  Have at it.

Moe, can I just say, it seriously warms my heart to see yours and others' posts in favor of gay marriage. It's posts like these, from dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, that make me realize that gays will get the right to marry; it's just a matter of time. And slowly people will realize that far from being an evil plot or destabilizing effect, SSM will only help society.

Also, I think the best thing about the legislative approach is that when a legislature does (as CA did last year) enact gay marriage, those opposed will not be able to claim that "judges did it" or that it was a forced "gay agenda" (my favorite nonsensical bugaboo). It will be the duly elected representatives of the people who performed the act, and it will be upon the bigots on the right (and no, I am not calling all of you who oppose gay marriage bigots, not by a long shot, but we all know full well there are some in that category, e.g. most of Free Republic) to either replace those legislators or overturn the law another way. In any event they will need to explain why the democratic process, which they claimed was the way it needed to be done, cannot then, all of a sudden, be trusted.

... and all of the others who have called opposition to same-sex marriage bigoted. In one of the best lines of the decision, the Court says:

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one.  Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.  A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted.  We do not so conclude."

This statement is even more remarkable because the Court is quite liberal on most issues.

link

Dean stated in the interview: "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

He added that the party differs with some religious leaders in believing "everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important."

After the gay rights group went public with its complaints about his remarks, Dean acknowledged: "I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say marriage should be limited to a man and a woman," and reasserted the party's commitment to equal protection for all.

I think government should be the registrar, not the arbiter, of civil unions.  Leave holy matrimony to the church.

biological functions she can perform that you cannot, as well.  Marriage is a recognition of the value to society of encouraging those functions.

SSM, on the other hand, encourages something that is not in society's interest.  It may be in your interest, but that doesn't make it be in mine.  It encourages stability in something that should not take place at all.  

Part of this debate is a fight over legitimacy.  Same sex proponents want homosexuality legitimized, (literally "given the approval of law").  That is a way to encourage acceptance of homosexuality as just another lifestyle.  While one effect may be to stabilize certain homosexual relationships, it cannot fail to increase the number of homosexual relationships.  

The intent of same sex marriage is corruption.

But would end entirely (based on the information that is currently available) in the anti-homosexuality faction's favour.  And it would be a pretty short debate...

When it comes to harm to a society, the most important part is its effect on children related to the homosexual couple.

Bottom line is that all research that has been thus far conducted says it's a Bad Thing for kids to be raised with.  Whether they have 2 dads or 2 moms, or have only a single parent because their other parent ran off with whomever or is having an affair.

The next thing that would need be looked at is what legitimized homosexual relations have had on Other societies (look to Northern Europe).  Again, nearly universally destructive.

I'm sorry, but conventional Marriage wins out every time you compare the 2 rationally...

Re: People do take their moral cues from the law.

In this case though that is an argument FOR same sex marriage. The current situation, in which same sex relationships are outside the law (but not against it either) basically says that sexual relations are trivial and unimportant if procreation is not a possibility, so party all you want. In a culture where birth control also is available that sends exactly the wrong message to heterosexuals as well as gays. Sexual relationships, whether children are in the bargain or not, should always be constrained, in principle, by holding up monogamous matrimony as THE ideal toward which all persons should aspire unless they wish to live celibate. The current situation is as bad as if some small class of people were told they didn't need drivers licenses and didn't have to worry about the traffic laws.

of my quotation marks.  To elucidate:  The quotes around the word 'normal' (differentiating heterosexual marriage from homosexual marriage) acknowledge that some people, such as yourself, would not recognize the distinction as valid.  

But in fact I should not have used the quotes, because as zuiko has already pointed out, 'normal' indeed does not describe homosexual anything.  'Normal' describes something that approaches the 'norm,' meaning something near the majority of occurences of anything.  Often, it's described as near the peak of a bell curve of a distribution.  Homosexuality is out on the tail of the curve.  Of course, sexuality is a discrete function, not a continuous one, but maybe you understand the explanation.

You, and the comments that follow in agreement with you, are confusing 'normal' with 'natural.'  All those abnormal (away from the norm) behaviors are natural, as in 'occuring in nature.'  That doesn't mean we should promote or encourage them, or pretend they are as normal as more societally acceptable behavior.

Further, you miss the point.  No sexuality of any kind is a prerequisite for marriage, and it never has been, although it's often a driving force.  Thus, sexuality shouldn't even enter the argument.  And without sexuality, there is no reason to prohibit non-sexual marriage between related adults, if we have already swallowed the camel that same-sex marriage should be allowed.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that I chose the wrong word in the first comment.  I forgot that 'incestuous' implies a sexual element.  I should have specified 'non-sexual marriage between related adults' as I just did.

...currently provide a marriage license with anything other than two blanks for the signees?

Logically, that's a pretty big hurdle for your triumvarate marriage fears...

if two men or two women are allowed to marry?

Why should the number two remain immutable when we were willing to alter the entire known tradition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to take the vows?

. . . but not a quibble with anything that I wrote.  I did not say people are prevented from being committed, I said that their commitments are not legally enforceable.  I further said that in the case of polygamy the contract is not only unenforceable, but the attempt to make it is an imprisonable offence.  

This is not about 'privileges'.  It is the bizarre message that someone may live with as many people as they want, but will be punished for promising commitment.

How the Government should treat marriage.  Period.

Marriage, in and of itself, is a purely religious issue.  IIRC, there's this little thing in the Contstitution that says the government can't mess around with such matters.

As it applies to the State, however, marriage is merely a contractual agreement that affects taxes, income, other legal matters, and (the sticky point in my opinion with gay marriage) the Raising of Children.  That's It.

the government should recognize civil unions and only civil unions and leave it up to your individual religion to deal with Marriage.

Alabama voted 81% for amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman June 6th of this year.  

Note: Democrat sponsored

So are the Democrats believers in democracy or not?

"...just because i don't believe in god doesn't mean I stopped being a good Catholic!"

There goes the "50 state strategy"

I was comparing the interracial marriage prohibition not from a legal perspective but from a societal one. I suspect that this is not the forum to explore my opinions on the subject so I won't pursue it further.

To your subsequent points I'm in total agreement.

It has merit. In fact, it is marginally my current position. But I'll take a stab at answering.

1. We wouldn't violate the "two" rule by passing same sex marriage, so its not weakened directly.
   
2. A potential ally of polygamy (gay coalition) is removed
   
3. More than one partner is more about sex than about the western notion of love
   
4. Maximum resources per child peek at two parents, one child. Assuming wives are added for the purpose of breeding, the ratio gets worse with added wives.
   
5. The control is in the hands of the people, and they are not total idiots.

Not that these are great. I'm just saying that there need not be some overarching legal principle, since its not decided by the courts.

While thinking about this, something minor came together in my head that is worth pointing out.

If feminism argues that women are at a structural disadvantage do to child bearing, the same argument can be proposed against gay marriage.

Being unable to procreate in a relationship is necessarily a structural disadvantage in being able to understand the importance of a stable relationship in child rearing, the core function of marriage.

A fork/knight is available in this skirmish.

I got nothing else.

my states activist court decided the unelected seven should do what they want and gave us gay "marriage".  The opinion which was 4-3 even in this nut state was so broad, even stating that they are consenting adults and they should be basically allowed to do anything they want.  The wording would absolutley allow polygamy, incest and probably beastiality.  I think the 4 would be just fine with that.  The chief judge is married to a former NY times columnist, anthony lewis, and during the lead up to the case and since (there are efforts to get a ballot question passed repealing the judicial fiat) the Boston Globe and its owner the times have been hammering gay "marriage" day and night, 365 days a year.

Though their are reasonable arguments to allow it.

However, I do take SOME issue with your logic about polygamy. The slope does exist, but is not nearly as slippery when same sex marriage is implemented via the legislature, where as it is bound to happen if done through the courts.

is just another step in the crusade by leftist gays.  In MA, the lead lobbyist of the gay groups is also the lead lobbyist of the teachers unions.  What the gay groups want is for being gay to be celebrated as normal.  The marriage is just another step.  They are indoctrination of the gay agenda into the schools.  I don't know about other parts of the country but in MA, through the teachers union and very liberal school administrators they have large numbers of gay friendly assemblies, gay student groups, etc.  We have 7 and 8 year olds being exposed to books called "heather has two mommies" and being taught that from very young ages that being gay is a great way of life.  The whole transgender, etc are all lumped in.  It is far more than just marriage, it is complete and full acceptance as normal their lifestyle.

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9209&department=CFI&categ
oryid=education

Logic admits parallels between two things which are not the same, but nonetheless have similarities.  It is no part of the argument of parallels to suggest that sex and number are the same thing, any more than race and sex are the same thing.

Surely the parallel argument is this: there is no law to prevent two men living together, having a sexual relationship, etc, etc.  What the law prevents is a legal contract between them to conduct this relationship in a committed way.  The same applies to polygamy.  A man may live with, and father children by, as many women as he likes.  But if he makes a legal commitment to stay with these women 'til death us do part' he has committed a criminal offence.  This applies not just to polygynous (many women) marriages, but to polyandrous (many men) or group marriages.  All are legal, unless you want to be committed to eachother.

The law seems to admit irresonsible behaviour while punishing those who seek to be more responsible.

A second linkage as this: as long as it is considered definitional in a marriage that the parties must be of a different sex, the number of parties is set at two.  If there may be parties to the marriage who are of the same sex, there is no logical limit to the number who may be party to the agreement.

we don't have to pay him a thing.  He's like one of those toys were you pull the string.  Pull the string and Howard tells the voters how far out of the mainstream the leftists running the democrats really are.

I look forward to this fall when they lose yet another election.  I'm certain they'll believe they need to run even further to the left to win.  What is more enjoyable, staying in the majority for another 2 years or hearing about Democrats going crazy after losing again.

They can be as committed as they wish, the same sex couple or the polygamous group.  They just can't expect Legal Protection of their relationship or Legal Advantages (taxes, health care, etc).

Legal Protections/Advantages also have little effect on commitments.  That's a personal decision.

the radical gay lobby in Massachusetts and see all the propaganda they put into the school system with the teachers unions and the school committees.

If you think being gay is acceptable, that's your deal, I think it is disgusting and immoral.  A group where a large percentage has anonymous sex in gay bars, rest stops on highways and local parks are a depraved group.  You are obviously naive about the gay agenda though.

and it is wrong.

They do not seek to educate, they are putting this crap in the public schools to 6 and 7 year olds before they have awareness of morality.

That Homosexuality is a Biological matter, it can, and Should be classed as an ABnormal action.

Sexual Relations exist purely to promote the Survival of the Species.  That they are highly enjoyable is merely a bonus and helps to encourage folks to mate.

As far as we know, animals occasionally partake in homosexuality purely because it feels good.  There has been insufficient study to tell us otherwise.

When you can come back with Proof that homosexuality is truly Biological and not a psychological matter (would still apply to animals), THEN you can say that it is "Normal"

Interracial marriages are still marriages between a man and a woman.  There's no way that any heterosexual couple can claim they're not being given 'equal protection,' because they can't be denied a marriage license now.  But if two males are allowed to marry, there's no logical argument why three can't marry as well.  I don't rely on a 'slippery slope' argument.  I say there will be plenty of courts that will force the issue under the 'equal protection' clause.

If you think that "no one has yet argued againt: number and gender are two vastly different categories and there is no logical fraternization between them" then you didn't read qlangley's comment closely.  Among other things, Q clearly lays out the fact that eliminating the requirement for a marriage to be of two people of the opposite sex removes a significant barrier against multi-partner marriage--if there are three or more, they can't all be of the 'opposite' sex.

Also, I didn't claim they were the same.  I claim, as I've explained in two comments now, that the same arguments that are used to rationalize institutionalization of same-sex marriage can be used, with minimal change to the wording and no change to the logic, to rationalize multi-partner marriage.

This whole movement boils down to an attempt to change the traditional meaning of a word, because that word, 'marriage,' already has a whole bunch of perks attached to it that 'same-sex union' doesn't.  I have been trying to illustrate what would follow if 'marriage' were redefined that way.

Was that Dean stated he was against gay marriage. http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6713

The only thing I draw from this is that Dean is certainly my most preferred dem candidate in 08.

is all those pesky people who are just plain unenlightened and won't vote like they are told to.

Gideon's response was accurate and concise.  The exact same arguments that can hypothetically convince a legislature to validate the concept of same-sex marriage can be applied equally well to multiple-partner and to incestuous marriage.

To comment directly on your original response, I agree that it may be less likely that a legislature will approve polygamy than same-sex, but I'm not sure why.  The logical arguments for polygamy are exactly the same as for same-sex, and perhaps more palatable for most legislators.  After all, polygamy is in the Bible, not proscribed by it.  At least not everywhere.

Further disagreements:

"More than one partner is more about sex than about the western notion of love"

Who says?  That's a completely subjective judgement that would be hard to prove.  You could make the same assertion about same-sex marriage and perhaps be more accurate.  One could even ask, "What does Marriage have to do with Love?" and say it with a straight face.  And, why bring in western notions as relevant?  Remember, the Supreme Court has some members that say we should be looking overseas for some legal answers.

"Maximum resources per child peek at two parents, one child. Assuming wives are added for the purpose of breeding, the ratio gets worse with added wives."

Assuming that you mean this as an argument that could be made to the public or to a legislature, I think it is a bit esoteric, and crass as well.

"The control is in the hands of the people, and they are not total idiots."

Well, maybe.  Maybe not total, that is.

The feminism argument is lost on me, partly because I don't think the arguments about "who makes the best parents" or "who makes the most stable families" score any valid points in the gay marriage discussion.  Lots of heterosexual couples without the ability or the intention of raising children get married.  Lack of procreate-ability is not an argument against gay marriage.

This brings me to one of my original statements that nobody has taken exception to, "if same-sex marriage is ever approved anywhere, I would be the first to argue that sibling-to-sibling and other incestuous marriage MUST be allowed as well."

Here's my reasoning.  If we accept that a 'normal' sexual relationship is not a requirement for a legal marriage (which we must if we accept gay marriage), we must recognize that we have never required any sexual relations be required for a marriage.  I'm not the first to use the term 'marriage of convenience.'

So if we allow same-sex marriage, and we have never required sexual relations as a condition of marriage, it is clear that a 'marriage of convenience' between siblings must be acceptable as well.  Probably, if they wished to push it legally, an elderly brother-sister couple could sue to be allowed to marry under current law.

Why would they want to?  Let's say for all but one of the same reasons gay couples wish to marry.  They marry for health coverage of one, under the other's health-care plan.  For financial reasons.  Maybe for tax reasons.  And all the arguments gays have made about love, providing for a loved one, etc., apply to this brother-sister couple, too.  

Now just extend the idea, and it would also apply to any brother-brother, sister-sister, mother-daughter, father-son couples.  Devise your own combination of relatives.  In fact, to deny these folks marriage, if non-related same-sex couples are allowed to marry, would necessarily be declared illegally discriminatory by any Court that believes the laws should be applied equally to all.

All are equal in the majesty of the law. Both rich and poor are forbidden to sleep under bridges, steal bread and beg for money.

Boy, that's stupid.  What a tin ear.  Whatever we're paying Dean, it's not enough.

Your argument fails on its first line, and I think you knew this on some level with the quote marks:

If we accept that a 'normal' sexual relationship is not a requirement for a legal marriage (which we must if we accept gay marriage)

Gay sexual relationships are normal.  They have been around as long as humans have (and in other species as well), and while they have enjoyed different levels of social status at different times in human history, they are just as "normal" as hetero relationships.  When you hinge an argument on something like, "well, that's just not normal," it's not some rock-solid principle of logic.

Between the definition of something and the regulations surrounding it. Rules about age, race, relationships, etc do not change the definition. Removing the man + woman component and replacing it with man + man or man + woman + woman or woman + poodle fundamentally change what it is to be married.

There is also no discrimination in the current laws. Any man can marry any one woman and any woman can marry any one man. You don't have to take a test to prove you are straight. Many people who participate in homosexual activity are married to someone of the opposite sex.

...in the past; honestly, I think that comparing interracial marriage and gay marriage is an apples-to-oranges situation.  The laws that forbid the former were pretty obviously in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was remarkably clear in its language.  WRT the latter, a lot of people are mistaking 'we should do this thing' with 'we are obliged by the Constitution to do this thing'; and I suspect that more than a few of them are doing so deliberately.

Make no mistake; I think that we should do this thing.  But the burden of proof's all on my side.

 Anatole France was the author of that quote.

The obvious Democratic "strategy" or "feelings" about homosexual marriage. I dare say if there was a straight up or down vote on homosexual marriage in the US Senate, the Dems could not muster 10 votes in favor. However, what Dean has made clear is that the strategy and intent is for the Court to FORCE homosexual marriage down the throats of the American people. Thereby giving the Dems "cover" on the issue. It will become more and more (if it isn't already) a litmus test for Democratic senators votes on judicial nominees. Luckily for them they can couch that litmus test on the more "popular" issue of abortion, but make no mistake, homosexual marriage is issue 1A for Democrats as it pertains to the Courts.

Of course, I oppose any rights on the basis of sexual choice. I do believe in helping the helpless or the most needy. I do not, however, support lowering the common denominator, in this case those who define themselves by their sexual perversion, in terms of social acceptance.

Anti-miscegenation laws treated different men differently, as well as women.

Our current marriage laws, which define marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, treat all men equally, as well as all women.

Re: The logical arguments for polygamy are exactly the same as for same-sex

Actally no. Gender is like race: an accident of biology. Number is one of the most basic categories of logic: it's vastly more significant than race or gender.

I can imagine being born of another race, or the other gender. I cannot imagine myself being born plural.

When we allowed women or Blacks to vote there was nevber any "slippery slope" that would suggest anyone be alloweed to vorte more than once.

...Mostly, gay couples are only interested in being notified when their significant other is injured in a car wreck or something and not able to notify them themselves, and they're not able to sit by their bedside, or they're not able to take care of the mortgage b/c the one in the coma signed all the documents 15 years ago...

This is false. If that was the case, we would be talking about civil unions. It is the gay lobby that removed civil unions from the agenda. They are not at all interested in civil unions, even though it provides all the utilitarian benefits you describe. They want marriage for a reason and it isn't the utilitarian factor.

So, the same approximate rough fraction of humanity has homosexual tendancies since Genesis

Like I said, that has nothing to do with it. I suppose you could redefine the word normal however you want. Using your definition, it is perfectly normal to kill your neighbor or to beat your wife. Both have happened since the beginning of time.

I don't think the biological component has anything to do with it. People and animals are born with all sorts of abnormalities, and we continue to develop new ones, that are clearly biological in nature, throughout life.

I second the arguments put forward by qlangley, who expressed himself very clearly.  I just want to note another problem with your comment.

You are ignoring the main point of this sub-discussion.  The point is that if a legislature votes to allow same-sex marriage because of the arguments put forth in their favor, they must either also approve other marriages that can use the same arguments, or the courts will force them to do so.

The arguments have been very simple, or rather simplistic:  "Two people love each other, they want to legally vow to do so forever in a marriage ceremony, and they want as a result to receive the same benefits and treatment that other married people receive.  Those benefits include various aspects of health-care, insurance, tax treatment, and other employee benefits.  It's unfair that marriage is restricted to two people of opposite sex."

The same arguments are equally viable for multi-partner marriage.  Substitute 'three or more' for 'two,'  and change the final sentence to read, 'It's unfair that marriage is restricted to two people.'

Same arguments, equally valid, and if a legislature doesn't think so, a court will.  The old 'equal protection' clause, you know.

Would you have been more accepting if I'd said, "The logical arguments for polygamy are essentially the same as for same-sex" marriage?

Normality is subjective.

What is not subjective is the omnipresence of homosexuals among us, regardless of climate, socioeconomic factors, or personal desire.

"Nobody can make you <insert your most reviled homosexual act here> if you don't want to."  --- My wife (she used eight letters, fyi)

Saying it's not "normal" doesn't make it go away.

Establishing barriers to civil contracts based on "non-normality" isn't a principle on which America was built.

The impetus is not so much the law itself as the effect of the law on the culture it regulates.  By changing the boundaries, and deepening the approval of homosexuality in the culture, same sex marriage promotes homosexual marriage in a broad way, which also promotes homosexuality in general.  It promotes open homosexuality, which is what I find loathsome.

People do take their moral cues from the law.  Whether they should do so or not is a different question; they do it.  The effect on a particular person might be slight or negligible.  For some, it would be a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, condition to adopting that lifestyle.

Why do I care?  Because I believe in encouraging others and when possible forcing others to accept my morality, and I have no qualms about it.  Yes, I accept that others disagree, but I will not quit trying to convince them, and using the law to do so when I can.  

"It is far more than just marriage, it is complete and full acceptance as normal their lifestyle."

Did you just figure this out recently?  If so, what else to you expect?  What actual gay person -- who, by the way, has seen his status in American society progress by leaps and bounds in the last half-century -- is going to sit on his hands and say "yup, things are good enough"?  It's one thing to disagree with so-called liberal policies like same-sex marriage, but expressing surprise that the goal of interest groups representing gays is full acceptance of, well, gays seems a bit obtuse.

...that most of the people here (including me) would snicker at the idea of me being a dyed in the wool conservative.  I'm at about the left edge of the spectrum here.

Wow! A lucky break for New York State.  Two judges away from forcing gay marriage on an unwilling populace.  Even in the blue state of New York, support for gay marriage is, at best, tepid.

I heard a New Yorker interviewed on the radio.  He said that he would expect a decison like this "in the South," because, "we have more exposure to people here than they do."  So, once again liberalism means enlightenment, and tradtional values are mocked.

Remember, we are in a fight for our values.  If the Supreme Court decides to ignore the populace's overwhelming desire to keep marriage between a man and a woman, we need a strong Congress to fight back.

I also don't think that hypothetical would stand up to the tax code.

Can a mother and son set up the battery of contracts that would effectively civilly marry them?  Probably.  Creepy.

But the mother & son already have next-of-kin relationships that, let's be honest, is all most of the gay marriers are seeking...

Democrats to America:

Courts, Not Citizens, Should Decide Interracial Marriage

in this best of all possible posts.

Get into semantic games.  Defenders of anti-miscegenation laws claimed that "Every man was treated the same as every other man; you can marry someone of your own race. You have the same rights as every one else." Defenders of opposite-sex only marriage claim that current anti-ssm laws are equally fair, as every man is treated the same: he can marry any woman he chooses.  From a logic standpoint, what's the difference?

My point is that we will not find the answers to these questions in logic or word games: we can always find ways to "state" the problem differently.  For example: I can claim that current marriage law treats me, a man, differently than a woman: She can marry a man, and I can't.  Therefore, the law is discriminating on the basis of sex, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, yes?  Now, I hardly doubt this will satisfy you as some "A-ha!" moment in defense of SSM, so my point, again, is that saying, "We're all equal under the law," doesn't really solve anything. That doesn't mean the law is just or fair.

realtionships mother/son are not able to avoid paying an inheritance tax like husband/wife.

It is illegal in many states to marry any "blood relative" closer than a second  cousin.

may have changed that.

Give it some time.

...Mostly, gay couples are only interested in being notified when their significant other is injured in a car wreck or something and not able to notify them themselves, and they're not able to sit by their bedside, or they're not able to take care of the mortgage b/c the one in the coma signed all the documents 15 years ago...

A mother and son can already engage in some of that power-of-attorney behavior.

It's not a "holy" way to think about marriage, but those are some of the little things that cost about 20 times as much to do when you practice the love that dare not speak its name...

>>"We're all equal under the law," doesn't really solve anything. That doesn't mean the law is just or fair.

But it DOES mean the current cannot be overturned by judicial challenge, only by legislation, which is the point of this thread and wholly.

I wouldn't vote for the current law of New York State either.  But this ruling means that people in New York State at least get to hold the vote, something denied to people in Massachusetts.

>>While one effect may be to stabilize certain homosexual relationships, it cannot fail to increase the number of homosexual relationships.  

Your argument seems pretty weak to me.  Are you one of the people who is just waiting for same sex marriage to become legal so that you can convert to homosexuality?  Or is this something you would just never consider?  

What is it about homosexuality that is so overwhelmingly attractive to heterosexuals that they just know that a single change in the law would have them clamouring to convert?

You are fully entitled to your view that an increase in the number of homosexual relationships would be bad, just as I am entitled to to regard this as a matter of indifference.  But I think your idea that allowing people who quite legally enjoy physical and emotional relationships to undertake a legal commitment would somehow increase the number of homosexual relationships is open to not just challenge but also ridicule.

"Strength and wisdom are not opposing values."

and never has been. I am "abnormal" in several respects: I am left handed and have red hair, for example. I also belong to a church which rather few other Americans belong to. And I am proficient in mulitple languages. None of that sets me apart as a danger to society. Rather than argue about the normality of something we oight rather argue about whether it is seriously (and inherently) harmful or not.

You stated, "Establishing barriers to civil contracts based on "non-normality" isn't a principle on which America was built."

There are different facets regarding this argument. We have read them in this thread.

Will you allow me to post one scenario for your (or anyone else's) opinion?

Let's suppose that a man and a woman were married. Then, when the man died, his wife inherited all of their common property.

In order to avoid a death tax, the surviving woman decides to marry her son in order to pass along his inheritance, while avoiding paying taxes on the holdings - the assumption being that the son will outlive her.

Is that ok?

(I have to confess that this scenario originated from a friend and not with me)

...I'm not disagreeing with the contention that homosexuality isn't "the norm of reproductive orientation" ... who could?

I'm just disputing that "normal" or an opposite thereof should be used to describe homosexuality.

ABNORMAL is a baby with three arms, or conjoined twins, or some other wildly aberrant birth defects.

Homosexuality is quite "normal" biologically speaking, in that it is represented in LARGE numbers of the population (even 5% is a HUGE number of instances)

I guess I'll have to take comfort in the fact that "A witty saying proves nothing."

Remember Dean saying on CBN

The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important.

Which,uh, wasn't true.

The Dems, as usual, want the courts to impose their dream of "equality" on the country whether they want it or not. As I have written in other posts, I want the courts to stay out of this issue, and out of abortion laws as well. These are state matters. The Democrats believe that they are "enlightened" and the rest of us will just have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, into the enlightened future as decreed to us by the courts. I say no. But then again, I vote Republican, so I am just another knuckle-dragging gay conservative. I guess it's all that internalized homophobia they keep talking about.

Its telling that when the Democrats say (w/o sincerity I might add, since they really want a federal court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions) that this is a matter 'for the states to decide', they rarely specify that its for the legislature or people of each state to decide.  

This statement makes it clear, that insofar as national Democrats like Dean actually do think the states should settle it, they are talking about state courts.  And it should also make clear that when the court declines to impose gay marriage/civil unions, then its reached the 'wrong' decision, just as vast majorities of every state to vote on the issue have also reached the 'wrong' decision.

vote against their own best interests.

I disagree that people take their moral cues from the law, especially in matters as close to the brain stem as sexuality.  I think it's 100% accurate to say that people conform their actions to comply with laws, but there's a world of difference between complying with the law and agreeing with it.

Sure, there's correlation of behavior with what the law dictates, but it's not logical to infer causation from correlation- remember the famous inverse relationship between global temperature and the number of pirates over time- yes, they correlate, but you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that one caused the other.

The law may dictate our actions, and in many cases our actions and our ideals may be aligned, but one does not logically cause the other.  

Morality only occurs in the space of freedom and choice- absent that, there can be only compliance, which on the surface is indistinguishable from morality, but is nothing of the sort.  This is the sort of freedom available to slaves, and ill-befits a nation of the free.

In this case, the law expresses our collective willingness to use government as an instrument to push our own morality upon others.  In this application it is fundamentally an instrument of domination- and while domination can force compliance, it will never win hearts and minds, it will never appeal to the self-interest of those being dominated.  As such, I very strongly question whether it will ever be an effective instrument for moral change.

Are there occasions where it's justifiable to settle for dominating those who don't share our moral view?  Certainly- we lock up sociopaths whose failure to conform to our notions of workability constitutes a public safety problem or some other measurable harm- but the bar for this test is very high, and rightly so, but this issue doesn't meet that measure- gay people aren't harming my marriage, nor do they undermine anything but perhaps your idea about how they should be.

I think it's a mistake to use the government to legislate morality, in the same way I think it's a mistake to try to use the government to make life fair or to make everybody equal- it's the wrong tool for the job, and tends to create its own blowback.

Freedom begins where you and I give up the right to dominate each other, while carefully guarding our own rights and those of our neighbors.

You've been civil, and my comment was unfairly pejorative.

I'd still say that labeling something as "normal" has connotations... some seek to make them, some don't.

I think that such a tactic will result in more people being opposed to gay marriage, not fewer.

If anything the African-American community is pretty opposed to gay marriage and when you say "this is a civil rights issue!" they hear "this is a Civil Rights Issue!" and they immediately start thinking Jim Crow and Dred Scott and that only leads to a very deeply felt "THE HECK IT IS!!!"

If I were to argue for gay marriage (and I do), I would (and do) argue for it solely as a private, individual, tax and/or insurance contract issue.

... Heterosexuality as sex within a loving relationship, and Homosexuality as, well, all the rest of the sex that occurs for selfish purposes coughViagracough...

the point you were trying to make.

POA and inheritance would still be different than if a mother married her son in order to avoid an inheritance or "death tax".

I have no problem with civil unions. If that was on the agenda for the last several years instead of SSM, I'd bet that many states would have enacted statutes already. Instead, they created a backlash and are moving opinion the other way.

'around the norm.'  It doesn't mean the opposite of 'unnatural.'  (That implies that 'not normal' does not mean 'unnatural.')  It doesn't mean 'good.'  It doesn't mean 'bad,' or even 'not bad.'  In my usage, it's a non-judgmental term.

"But you're using "normal" as the antithesis of a small group's "regular" sexual intimacy.  You're using a word purposefully to marginalize their existence."

Am not.  No where, no how.  In the first place, how can my use of a word marginalize anybody?  And that definitely wasn't my intent, and it wasn't what I did or said.  In the second place, you can call homosexual activity normal until you're blue in the face, but the closest you'll come to being right (unless you want to redefine 'normal') is if you want to call some subset of it 'normal homosexual practice.'  

I had no interest in discussing the merits of any of this based on its 'normalcy.'  It isn't important to me, and in fact, it isn't even relevant in my opinion.

Torrentprime took issue with my use of the word 'normal,' in quotes, and several responses were posted to him before I had checked back in.  I made the mistake of answering him, and I got sucked into a discussion of whether homosexuality is 'normal' or not.

My opinion is that the dictionary doesn't help much, but it indicates that I am not far wrong if I say, it's 'natural' but not 'normal.'  And, again, I don't think it should even impinge on the discussion.

You couldn't be more wrong.  Gays know that they aren't immoral, and want bigotry such as "teh gays are not right by god" to be removed from law and public policy.  They don't seek legitimization; they educate others to help them realize they already are legitimate, and that laws which deny them this are un-American. It's the outdated and purely sectarian belief that gays "just are" wrong that is illegitimate.

with you on the polygamy opinion.  Easier to argue for that than for SSM.

As I admitted elsewhere, I used the wrong word for my intention when I used 'incestuous.'  I really meant 'non-sexual marriage between related adults.'  Same arguments can be made for that as for SSM, and in both cases children need not be an issue.

Shouldn't anybody be able to marry anybody they want? Why should the state get involved in the relationships between consenting adults? Isn't that the argument? I would respect the arguments of supporters of SSM if they were consistent there.

The money masters of the Lobby, I'd agree, have a neo-Trotskyite agenda to destroy all marriage.

The old ..kes and ..gs just want what they feel is theirs.

The former camp is WRONG.  Anyone who wants more than civil unions is asking too much.  Would you agree that c.u.'s are a reasonable compromise?

That would be civil unions, not SSM. SSM is about teaching 6 year old boys in kindergarten that they might grow up to marry another man. It's about the complete indoctrination of kids from the earliest of ages until they leave the public school system. That is the real agenda. The utilitarian reasons are just the talking points they stick to, because they know they won't get any support for their real agenda.

Procreation is not a required part of being married, or that would exclude SSM at the same time, as well as anyone who happens to be infertile or any women after menopause.

So, the same approximate rough fraction of humanity has homosexual tendancies since Genesis, and you insist it's not "normal" (by statistics, neither is voting Republican) and Raven demands "proof" that it's biological, not strictly behavioral.

Ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as teaching 6-y-olds about ANY kind of sex in public schools.

for those laws had to do with the belief that intermarriage between close relatives does bad things to the gene pool.

Without the sexual aspect of marriage, as in a marriage of convenience, the gene pool is safe, and we don't have to think about any of that other yucky stuff.  And it's just as defensible as SSM.

Which is exactly WHY we should have the legislatures deal with the issue. Legislatures don't have to deal with a slippery slope..they don't have to say, "If we allow this, then we have to allow that." They can arbitrarily decide to not allow sisters and brothers to marry, etc.

If the courts define the issue, then yes, we may have a problem.

That seems clear: secrecy is better than openness and your morality should be forced on everyone.

I hope you won't mind if I find that rather stomach-turning.

As I commented in an earlier thread, I've heard that view from both liberals and conservatives, and it's a good one.  I doubt it will never happen, though.

Is waaay down the thread named "Slippery Slope", btw. Wanted to make sure you found it

They used to call that "compromise."

Now, we just need to let Jennifer & Genevieve Gaystreet know that their happiness is being stood on by their leadership, not the gheyhatingchimpymcbushitlerprethuglinazis...

I would say that #2 and #5 are the strongest points, although I would also agree with you that all the arguments are "not great".

Your point about the necessity of child-rearing for understanding the importance of the marital relationship is very good.  Thanks.

The gift that just keeps giving.

If you didn't want a family, why get married?

I suppose for the same reasons that two men or two women want to get married. Besides, we don't use readily obtainable genetic information to prohibit anyone else from getting married (or procreating, for that matter) when they have a serious genetic abnormality they may pass on to their children, so why should it be any different in the case of relatives?

"[A]s long as it is considered definitional in a marriage that the parties must be of a different sex, the number of parties is set at two. If there may be parties to the marriage who are of the same sex, there is no logical limit to the number who may be party to the agreement."

Outstanding reasoning!

that is less observant of the MSM bias and pay attention to the talking points rather than the true motives do not fully understand the gay agenda.  The gay lobby wants something far more extreme than the public will accept.  I know they want their immorality legitimized but the public thinks its just about adoptions, hospital visits, estate laws, etc.

I probably should have been clearer in the first place.

Peace.  (I'm an old Dave Garroway fan.)

I think there was a practical (genetic or medical) reason for not allowing anybody closer than a second cousin to be married.  How would you like to be their kid?

They want their lifestyle to be considered morally equal or with some, morally superior to hetrosexuality.  They love the gay parades, they want to be celebrated.  A peaceful life with equal "rights" is not what they want.

Don't worry over what the newspapers say. I don't. Why should anyone else?

Most of these licenses also have areas labelled "husband" and "wife." If the current design of the form is going to be the deciding factor, that doesn't argue for SSM either.

it is.

But it very well can happen and most likely will.

"I support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples."

This is not intended as a threadjack.

Once marriage is 'redefined,' as you suggest, there is no logical argument against multiple-partner marriage, or to sibling-to-sibling marriage for that matter.  In fact, if same-sex marriage is ever approved anywhere, I would be the first to argue that sibling-to-sibling and other incestuous marriage MUST be allowed as well.  (I don't include adult-child marriage because there are valid logical arguments that can be made against them beyond the fact that they're already outlawed in most states.)

If I had a quarter for each of my blunders I'd have a servant doing my posting for me.  It happens, and in this case was an understandable mistake.

Still tells the right time twice a day.

While I applaud any decision in which judges say "we shouldn't be deciding this question," contrast it with the judicial travesty of Hamden v. Rumsfeld.  We finally get a court to say "This is the business of duly-elected officials, but appeals can still go to the "We trump two branches of government put together" Supremes.

If you still need a reason to get out and get active for this November, here it is.