Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.

And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

They might choose differently later, and allowing them to marry seems to encourage that.

Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.

Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.

Of course, none of this prevents you from getting a Civil Partnership.

[PanzerJaeger]

Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children (as opposed to gay adoption which has been a Godsend, pardon the pun, for children abandoned by their straight parents), but I respect your commitment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children, but I respect your commitment.

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.

What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.

[PanzerJaeger]

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?

I didn't say gay marriage hurt children, I said that the cultural and logical hopscotch was worse. I.e., the case for change is not very strong, at all. It essentially boils down to "not every heterosexual couple that marries has children, so homosexual couples should be allowed to marry too."

Highlighting the problems in heterosexual marriages doesn't equate to an argument for extending the institution.

[PanzerJaeger]

I didn't say gay marriage hurt children, I said that the cultural and logical hopscotch was worse. I.e., the case for change is not very strong, at all. It essentially boils down to "not every heterosexual couple that marries has children, so homosexual couples should be allowed to marry too."

That isn't the case for change. That was me pushing your logical framework to its extremes.

My argument for gay marriage essentially boils down to 'why not'? A statistically relevant proportion of the population wants it, and its implementation hurts no one. That is natural, healthy social progress. I'm a strong believer in tradition, but that tradition has to have some value. There is no value preserved in keeping gay people from marrying; and not doing so causes a great number of them to feel like second class citizens.

Highlighting the problems in heterosexual marriages doesn't equate to an argument for extending the institution.

Can anyone highlight any problems caused by homosexual marriage? The inability to do so would seem to be an argument in itself.

[Fragony]

I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?

PJ I don't know you as someone deliberately missing the point, not that I disagree with you, but it isn't about the specifics but the institution itself. If you have a certain outlook on it, the centuries old one, then how is it not a perversion of that institution. It's an empty word for me, but can those who care keep it real? Why can't they have that? How much value will a gay marriage have for the gays once I can marry my cat anyway, really love my cat.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

Great phrasing

Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.

If it was called civil unions in the law, I don't think there would be a movement to make it legally called gay marriage. The issue is that it shouldn't be called one thing for straight people and another thing for gay people.