I wonder how many gays would get married if gay divorce was not allowed or made extremely difficult.

But don’t put too much stock in the “gays are promiscuous” stereotype. (Not accusing you of anything! At least not trying to. I’m just talking about that sentence) While it does sometimes hold true still (and more so in the past), the general culture around homosexuality has changed such that many young gay people are now growing up fully expecting a life-long monogamous relationship. (That’s something I should write about sometime…hmm…)

As for the rest of your points, I’ve tried them all in this post and elsewhere. None of them seem to make any impact. (On that note, don’t even consider bringing up infertile couples who have children through the same methods generally employed by gay couples. They are apparently, “Just different”.)

One of the most typical approaches that NDT and AE have used is argument ad absurdum of minor details and even syntax of my statements (often of the very irritating form of post #78, the, “You said [x] so you also think [a] and [b],” form).

Another is taking each argument in a contextual vacuum, as it were, using lines like the NAMBLA one to “debunk” them individually and then moving on to different and sometimes contradictory arguments.

The last is to throw the person making the argument into the pejorative category of “gay leftist” (or “sick, deluded, and pyschotic [sic]“, if it’s AE doing the name calling) and thereby discount anything s/he might say. (I’ve often been called this, despite the fact that I’m a John Stewart Mill type or a Goldwater-ite, with a definite Sullivan flavor.)

And, NDT, why do you always try re-explain to me what I really said?

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. And assuming that marriage is solely for the purpose of creating children creates a utilitarian view of marriage.

Most heterosexuals also marry for love. Some of them choose not to have children. Some cannot have children and must hire surrogates.

As for the raising of children, what about children whose parents die or abandon them, or children who otherwise would have been aborted if not persuaded to give them up for adoption?

By the way, I oppose gay divorce, except in extreme cases. So if gays want marriage they had better be prepared to stick with it. Till death do us part. I wonder how many gays would get married if gay divorce was not allowed or made extremely difficult.

Any idea what the “L” in “NAMBLA” stands for, PSUdain?

Just because you “love” something is not grounds to marry it.

Furthermore, your “legal contract” argument is bogus, because you have explicitly stated that it is not LAWS that should determine marriage, but whether or not someone “loves” something.

What have heteros done to deserve marriage rights? Why should they be treated as superior to gays because of a biological coincidence that in-vitro fertilization could easily take the place of?

Attmay, since when have you been able to unite two sperm or two eggs from a same-sex couple to produce a child that is the genetic and biological offspring of both parents?

You can’t even fix that one with “in-vitro fertilization” — because you need an egg or a sperm from a third, unrelated party to even produce a child, and that child is not genetically related to both of its parents.

The fact that heterosexual couples can reproduce naturally and gay couples cannot is something that you can neither deny or get around.

You talk a good game about “family” and “the children” and about the “ideal of marriage”. And then you turn around and say it’s not about love. You talk down the very ideals that you just spent time talking up. How good are these loveless arrangements (what would you call them–not a real marriage according to the ideals, certainly) “for the children”? (I’ll put love in for sexual attraction, since there’s more to any couple’s relationship than that.)

Indeed, we have laws explicitly stating that you may not marry the person to whom you are sexually attracted unless they meet very stringent requirements.

What “very stringent requirements? That they’re not a legal minor and they’re not already family? Heavens to betsy! Almost draconian!

Also, the red herring of child marriage again? For God’s sake…do you never tire? One word, then one sentence:
Word: MINORS
Sentence: Minors cannot enter into legal contracts.

AND IF YOU EVEN READ THE QUTOE FROM COURT’S DECISION, THEY DID SPECIFICALLY USE THE WORD “ADULTS”. But don’t let that get in the way of your good old jeremiad about what the court supposedly said. Once more, I must say, “I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.”

Lastly, and most importantly:

AE has the perfect analogy; because you choose to drive a Volkswagen, you are claiming a violation of “equal protection” because you don’t get the same tax credits and carpool-lane privileges as do Prius drivers. I’ll add another; you are like a woman who chooses to get pregnant out of wedlock being upset because she would have to get married to get the same tax breaks as a similarly-situated married couple.

[Emphasis mine]. And there is why it’s not valid. Again, it’s one word. I didn’t choose to be gay. Nice try, though. Actually–it wasn’t. Horrible, horrible try.

I don’t think the fact that heterosexuals can produce children and homosexuals cannot is in the least bit subjective.

And of course, since you can’t get around that, you try to claim that biological relationships “don’t matter”.

In that case, PSUdain, since you argue that biological relationships “don’t matter” and that you should be allowed to marry whomever you want, please demonstrate intellectual consistency by demanding an end to the ban on incestuous marriage.

AE has the perfect analogy; because you choose to drive a Volkswagen, you are claiming a violation of “equal protection” because you don’t get the same tax credits and carpool-lane privileges as do Prius drivers. I’ll add another; you are like a woman who chooses to get pregnant out of wedlock being upset because she would have to get married to get the same tax breaks as a similarly-situated married couple.

In both cases, the government has chosen what behavior it wants to encourage. You are upset because you don’t want to follow those rules for whatever reason, but you still want the benefits given to those who DO follow the rules.

And finally, PSUdain, the only thing stopping you from marrying a woman is that you’re not sexually attracted to them. Tough. People are not allowed to marry that to which they are sexually attracted all the time. Indeed, we have laws explicitly stating that you may not marry the person to whom you are sexually attracted unless they meet very stringent requirements.

To close, don’t give me that guff about how incest or polygamy is “wrong”. The California Supreme Court established (stupidly) yesterday that “love” is all that matters and that if you “love” something, you should automatically be allowed to marry it, regardless of tradition or what anyone else thinks. In short, you have no right to oppose polygamous or child marriage, and doing so, by the court’s logic, makes you a bigot.

Don’t political beliefs count as beliefs? You denigrate mine (and other people’s) all the time using your pejorative of “leftist”, or what was that one you used?? Ah, yes, “mincing white leftists with six-figure jobs”.

Actually, AE does that a lot, too. Because I disagree with him on a subjective issue, he says to me, “And that is precisely why you are sick, deluded, and pyschotic.” [Nice spelling, by the way, AE!!]

We fundamentally disagree. I believe (and have arguments, anecdotes, and evidence to support my position) that gay families as a whole are no better or worse for kids than straight ones (be they biological or adoptive or by a surrogate). I think that biological connection matters very little in such a familial relationship. It matters far, far more that there is love and that people care properly for their children. [Straight] bio-parents can be abusive, and adoptive [straight or LGBT] parents can be the most caring loving people ever. Or vice versa. If biological relation did have such an impact, kids raised by LGBT families or adoptive families, or infertile couples who used surrogates, etc. would be worse off generally. All evidence says they’re not.

That’s an honest disagreement. There is no need to personally attack me, or anyone else.

Tim starts by namecalling:

NDT you hypocritical self loathing fucker!

and ends by denigrating personal beliefs:

a typical job for one who seeks forgiveness from a mythical being who floats in the sky

while between the two, claiming how horrible and awful it is for him to be namecalled and have his personal beliefs denigrated — and how bad the people are who do it.

For me, though, the exclusion of gays and lesbian couples from marriage is not a necessary condition for this compelling state interest to be succesful. That’s really what should be part of the larger debate though.

That is the crux of the debate. And I’m glad that we agree that it is a compelling state interest, because that makes my argument much simpler.

If the people have the right to encourage the nuclear family, as you seem to agree they do, there can be no logical or constitutional rationale for compelling them to admit an entirely different type of relationship that is, as a rule, incapable of making nuclear families.

Thats the same as arguing I should get your Prius tax cut for driving a volkswagon.

Could society admit gay relationships? Sure. Should they? That is up for debate. But there is no logical or constitutional reason why they must.

(I do disagree with what I think you’re saying in #63 and before that there is a moral difference. Bioligical yes, but not moral, IMO.)

It all comes down to if you value children and if you think children being raised by their natural parents, all other things being equal, is preferable.

If you do value children and think that they are necessary for society, then the relationships that produce them must necessarily be superior to those that do not. If you think children being raised by their progenitors is preferable, then that ideal is necessarily superior. I think its pretty clear that society believes this, not only because of marriage, but because of child tax credits etc.

It does NOT, however, follow that straight individuals are superior to gay individuals. They are not. These laws are about promoting behavior that is beneficial to society. Different behaviors are of different value to society. The fact that you can go out and buy a Prius, and get a tax credit, where I get none for driving a volkswagon, doesnt make me a lesser individual. It means your behavior in that ONE regard is considered more beneficial than my behavior.

Men marrying their children to each other in order to solidify a political or commercial bond, did not consider the married couple blood relatives, it was the children, the result of the union that unified the families through blood.