Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

[Universe Prince]

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals.

[...]

The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

This is not a valid argument against homosexual marriage. It is, on the other hand, a start for an argument against the state granting special privileges to married couples.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

[...]

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

So the argument is that procreation is to be done for the benefit of the state? Or perhaps that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage? I'm guessing both. The argument is nonsense. This might be a secular case against homosexual marriage, but it seems to be based nonetheless on a sense that individuals have a moral obligation, not to a god, but to the state, thus making the state a god and service to the state the approved "religion". So in the end the objection comes down to the same thing as a religious argument. Opposition to homosexual marriage because it is against the author's moral dogma. Or more accurately, because it removes control of people from the "religious".

The burden of proof is on those who oppose homosexual marriage in this way to prove that the state needs (not wants but needs) to have a specific interest in only permitting marriage on the grounds procreation and that procreation is something that is to be done for the service of the state. This burden has not been met. I doubt very seriously that it can be.

[Universe Prince]

>>What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being.<<

To most people that's exactly the point. I believe, and I think most people do also, that marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. It's not a big stretch to think that governments will eventually force churches to approve such marriages and punish those who don't by removing their tax exempt status or worse. The governments in the banking business and could soon be in the automobile business, would the marriage business be a big stretch?

Let them create a contract. Hire a lawyer. Personally I don't believe this, "I can't visit him on his deathbed" bullshit anyway.

Let them create a contract. I say that should be the way all marriages are handled. I agree that the government should meddle less. And marriage contracts are no exception.

Marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. If we lived in a theocracy that might matter more, if it is true in the first place.

[Universe Prince]

Because an earlier point I made, which you may or my not have read, was that rights are largely a red herring, in this discussion.  You yourself have acknowledged that there are equal rights, and that your criticism is aimed at so-called equal liberty.  But you echoed my point with your concession, "while I might technically agree that homosexuals have the same right, they do not have the same liberty"

Rights, imo, are something each person has as a human being, not something given by the state. So I doubt my comment validates yours.

Ridiculous to you perhaps.  Not to the millions who would consider the word far more important than you apparently see it.  Which begs the question then, if the word marriage isn't a big issue to folks like yourself, why the inability to compromise by referring to it as a domestic partnership for same sex couples??

I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman.  That's why

Because you want to preserve a definition of a word. Again, flimsy at best.

A position of not supporting any civil union, what-so-ever, making such relationships analgous to adultery, and largely demonizing the term homosexuality & homosexuals, as it once was, on a 24/7 basis.  The compromise is to accept said relationships, to accept equal rights under a civil union, to accept the increasing prevelence of said relationships as the norm in society.  Where's the compromise from the other side?  I'm not seeing it

What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I'm not sure why there should be an expectation of compromise from the homosexuals for those things to stop.

[BSB]

Sirs, the culture wars are over. Go for a run, eat some tofu, meditate, gaze at the stars, become green.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. If we lived in a theocracy that might matter more, if it is true in the first place.

Marriage BY THE CHURCH might be a sacrament given by God. Observe that people who do not believe in God also get married, as do those who believe in whole bunches of Gods.

But that is not the issue here. We are talking about civil marriage, which is clearly performed by the state, and this has no effect on whatever degree of holiness you place on a church wedding.

Apples and oranges, apples and crabapples, but different things.

As BSB said, the culture wars are over and your side lost.

and again, what possible harm to anyone's marriage could it be if Adam marries Steve in the County Court? You have yet to answer that question, haven't you? I suggest none, as in bupkiss, nada or zilch.

[Universe Prince]

Marriage BY THE CHURCH might be a sacrament given by God. Observe that people who do not believe in God also get married, as do those who believe in whole bunches of Gods.

Good point.

But that is not the issue here. We are talking about civil marriage, which is clearly performed by the state, and this has no effect on whatever degree of holiness you place on a church wedding.

Which was why I pointed out that we don't live in a theocracy.

and again, what possible harm to anyone's marriage could it be if Adam marries Steve in the County Court? You have yet to answer that question, haven't you? I suggest none, as in bupkiss, nada or zilch.

You quoted me, but since I am not arguing against your position, I am going to conclude that you did not intend the above comment to be directed at me.

[sirs]

Sirs, the culture wars are over. Go for a run, eat some tofu, meditate, gaze at the stars, become green.

I disagree, and no thank you

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, you are entirely correct. I was directing my comments at sirs.
I am opposed to the government forcing any clergyman to marry anyone they do not deem fits their own theological criteria.

[sirs]

Rights, imo, are something each person has as a human being, not something given by the state. So I doubt my comment validates yours.

Well, considering they echoed my point about homosexual couples as able to have the same rights as married couples, yes, you infact did

Ridiculous to you perhaps.  Not to the millions who would consider the word far more important than you apparently see it.  Which begs the question then, if the word marriage isn't a big issue to folks like yourself, why the inability to compromise by referring to it as a domestic partnership for same sex couples??

I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.

Precisely my point.  Many do, so if you are of those who care squat, then why the inability to compromise with those who "do give a crap"??

Because marriage is between a man and a woman.  That's why

Because you want to preserve a definition of a word. Again, flimsy at best.

In your opinion, perhaps.  You know, the dichotomy is intriguing.  1 side, who concedes that rights are pretty much equal, but rationalizes no need to compromise, in any sense, claiming no need to, as if their position is THE position to attain to, on a point that's largely about one word, that they confess they care so little about.  Truely intriguing

A position of not supporting any civil union, what-so-ever, making such relationships analgous to adultery, and largely demonizing the term homosexuality & homosexuals, as it once was, on a 24/7 basis.  The compromise is to accept said relationships, to accept equal rights under a civil union, to accept the increasing prevelence of said relationships as the norm in society.  Where's the compromise from the other side?  I'm not seeing it

What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I'm not sure why there should be an expectation of compromise from the homosexuals for those things to stop.

See what I mean?  Apparently the side that expects uniform acceptance of a lifestyle the majority of Americans find immoral has no need to compromise at any level     

[richpo64]

>>What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being.<<

For the majority of America that's the case. Why is it I have to be tolerant of some reprobates idea of marriage, but he doesn't have to be tolerant of mine and the vast majority? The perverted morals of the left aren't America's morals. I have to sit back and be silent when the left attempts to force their "values" on me when they refuse to accept mine? This is the case everytime. I have to remove the nativity scene. I have to stop praying at football games and in school. I have to go to the gym to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The left has to stop .... what? Attacking Conservative speakers on campus? Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy? What?

Get a lawyer. Make a contract. Sign it, and leave marriage alone.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So you claim that religious people own the word "marriage", and no one else can use it?

Why should anyone be tolerant or consider as some religious authority a geek who portrays himself as a sneering horned being having an extremely bad hair day who shows not a whit of Christian love and tolerance?

You don't have to sit back and be silent. Go ahead and rant your pointy little head off. Go build your own Nativity scene in your yard, say all the prayers you wish silently--you are not praying to the multitudes, but to God, and He says he always hears you: pray for the Lions to slaughter the Tigers or the Heat to melt the Penguins, that is your right.

Just don't expect others to agree with your constant rantings, ravings, pissings and moanings. Go unto Rush, and Mr Smedley and let them assuage your fears and anger.

[richpo64]

Don't worry asshole. I won't be silent. I'll be right in your piggy eyed little face.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, you won't. You will be appearing as you portray yourself, a hornéd being with some sort of mutant muff on your head, and dumb, insulting words typed alongside.

[hnumpah]

Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

===================================================
I think that it must be in there somewhere, but you have a good point.

It is probably safe to assume that if the Bible thinks gay men having sex in the manner of a hetero couple should be executed, this probably suggests that the act of gay sex is not likely to be approved by God if the same two people are married.

I don't think the concept of gay marriage was even considered as thinkable by the ancient Hebrews.

Alaexander the Great was a noted devotee of gay sex, but I don't think he and Hephaestion ever considered marriage. Though when Alex married Roxanna, Hephaestion did give him a really cool ring in Oliver Stone's flick.

There was not an overpopulation problem back in antiquity. We brought this on ourselves by curing so any diseases, and people are not dying so soon. I am sure that whatever Alex (or hephaestion) died of, it could have been cured by the good doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Another point: the more people are gay and married, the lower the birth rate will be, which these days, is probably a good thing.