That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. Sometimes I think the gay marriage argument to most people is just a kind of test case, a chance to push for or against some broader change in society. It would explain why people are happy saying such nonsense about it.

Reply

I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.

I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.

Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.

The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should

Reply

*shudder* Spelling.

Yes you can, when you realize that society would not exist for long without people who can create children. There should be limits to those benefits but I think it works out for everyone.

Reply

y do u h8 me?

Well of course society would cease if people stopped having children. But the point here is people get these benifits regardless of wether they have children or not. I hate to use and oft repreated arguement but by this logic a sterile straight couple should be stripped of the marrige benefits and those whom wish to remain childless should be put on a clock.

Reply

So whose idea was it to put a lot of rights into marriage that got none to very little to do with children?

Reply

I imagine they got there a lot of different ways. Usually an assembly of people (mostly men) draft laws and regulations regarding such things.

Oh, and no H8. Nothing but manly platonic love.

Reply

It doesn't take a great deal of looking to find balanced, sane arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage.

Indeed, if the contra position were so logical, and the pro position so inane, why were the supporters of Prop 8 so epically unable to marshal arguments in favor of their ban? Why did they score endless own-goals when they actually had to produce something?

"Your honor, you don't have to have evidence for this. … You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage," Cooper told the judge. "You won't find it had anything to do with homosexuality."

This defense satisfied almost no one. Ted Olson, the plaintiff’s attorney, was absolutely flummoxed by Cooper’s claim that he had no burden to do anything beside assert the immutability of traditional marriage. In his closing argument, a perplexed Olson replied, “You can't take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to prove anything.' ”

Reply

These are terrible


...


If we aren't going to test heterosexuals for fertility for simplicities sake, as Xiahou suggests, then it makes no sense to have a...what would it be, an "adoption attitude test"?...for homosexuals. We should just not concern ourselves with the fact that people are going to get married who aren't going to have kids, and that people are going to get married and divorced a year later...not concern ourselves legally anyway, as a society we should stop talking up marriage as such an ultimate ceremony of love. The religious right should go back to attacking hollywood and celebrity culture.

Reply