Thanks for the clarification. What I wish would happen is that ethics as a discipline would start to be taught again in high schools. Young people need to be given an intellectual structure with which to address ethical matters so that they can make informed choices. Schools are not doing enough to cultivate reason and rationality in young people, and instead following the example of society as a whole and cultivating their baser instincts.

As for the difference that being allowed to marry makes: I believe that the institution of marriage is the basis for best practice when it comes to raising children and forming families. I think it is vital that children know that their parents are in a commited relationship that they have sworn to before the state and (hopefully) before God as well.

On a practical level, if my husband were to receive a job offer out-of-state, we would not have to worry about whether or not that state recognized civil unions if marriage was no longer denied to same-sex couples. Again, the quality of life for our family depends on the portability of marriage benefits.

In terms of power politics, I agree that heterosexuals have the upper hand in terms of power. What is sad about our society is that for the some people their decisions will not be based on reason and rationality, but on the baser criteria of the like or dislike of those who are seeking liberty.

As for respect or mutual esteem: they are nice, but not essential. I realize that not everyone is going to like me and my family. Such people become problematic only when they try to interfere with our lives without rational cause.

I neither respect nor esteem racists, homophobes, anti-Semites, drunkards, or drug-addicts. But all those people have rights unless and until their behavior results in their loss of them. Similarly, gays and lesbians have rights unless and until they act in such a way as to forfeit them. Unfortunately, many people believe that gays and lesbians forfeit their rights simply by the fact of their being gay and lesbian. Such (il)logic that is hard to fight since it is immune to the effects of reason and rationality.

Thank you so much for a vigorous and enjoyable discussion.

I oppose opening the door to the slippery slope of recognizing marriages which are largely based on actions that can be controlled by choice.

This is where the problem for homosexual marriage comes to the fore in my thinking. So far as I can determine, homosexuality is not caused by a genetic force that can not be overcome.

I might have written the first paragraph above more clearly. Polygamy, incestuous unions, man/boy combinations, etc. are actions that can be controlled by choice.

I hoped to express my confusion in the second paragraph over whether homosexual attraction is a matter of choice or not. I added that my understanding is that homosexuality is not an immutable genetic “condition.” Therefore, I do not include homosexuality as an action that can be controlled by choice, although I know celibate homosexuals.

I did not write that homosexuality can be overcome by choice. But I do not rule it out, either. I just do not know.

Heterosexuals are in the driver’s seat concerning marriage, since they are the overwhelming majority. On the basis of pure power politics, whether kinky heterosexuals and kinky gays have the same impact on the dominant heterosexual power structure is a strange type of debate. As a straight man, I do not approve of kinky sex from anyone. But I am not inclined to cut slack to a gay on the basis that heterosexuals I do not endorse do equally perverse stuff.

I occasionally watch “Cops” on TV and I see all sorts of “married” people who came out of the shallow end of the gene pool. But I am not a Hitler on an extermination of inferiors campaign.

To say that it is inconsistent to permit trashy heterosexual marriages and object to the actions of kinky gays makes no sense. The issue is whether marriage be extended to gays. Since gays are making the claim for entrance to the club, it is they who must make the case for inclusion.

To bring this to a conclusion, gays have the right to marry. They want to change the rule so they can have same sex marriage. That is an issue that has to be “sold” on the basis of merit.

Gays are able to adopt without marriage. It is not clear what the addition of adding marriage would accomplish.

In the final analysis, I suspect that many gays who seek a redefinition of marriage are actually in search of a place of respect and mutual esteem in the general society. I suspect this is why the term “equality” is bandied about so often.

Respect and mutual esteem are earned. Period. They are not enacted by law.

As for New York State law and same-sex marriage: no one knows yet what the recognition of same-sex marriage means since it occurred only several weeks ago. As with many things, it will all be determined in the playing out (as you probably have realized, I am a fan of American philosophy, and my positions develop from the thought of Emerson, Mead, Pierce, and James. Pragmatism, for me, is the pinnacle of 20th century thought, and far too often overlooked by those on both the left and the right in favor of alien philosophies).

As for its recognition (if I understand the law correctly – I am not a lawyer), my marriage can be recognized because New York State recognizes out-of-state opposite-sex marriages that are not legal in New York State. Since the state grants recognition for opposite-sex marriages, it must, therefore, recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages or it would run afoul of the gay anti-discrimination law passed by the legislature. With the African gentleman, the question is whether or not New York State will recognize an out-of-state multiple-marriage that was performed legally in its place of origin.

I am not sure what you are referring to you when you talk about “actions that can be controlled by choice.” I can choose whether or not to have sex, but I cannot choose to feel waves of attraction when I look at my husband (any more than you can choose, I presume, to feel attracted to your wife and not other men).

You write that you think that homosexual desire can be overcome by choice, but as far as I know, no one has proven that it can be overcome. Such desire can be repressed and not acted upon, but I have not read of any way to change it. All the research I know of (my husband is a psychologist who specializes in sex and gender issues) indicates that human beings fall along a sexual continuum, and that while some people are capable of being attracted to both sexes (and often choose one to be the dominant attraction), other people are locked into one attraction.

As for keeping the radical gays out: has there been any effort to keep the radical heterosexuals out? My point here goes back to the very first comment I made in this thread: homosexuals’ sexual behavior is under greater scrutiny than that of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. There are plenty of kinky heterosexuals in the world — swingers clubs and other organizations exist all over the country. But I never read of anyone making the argument that the behavior of these radical heterosexuals imperils the rights of heterosexuals as a whole to be able to marry. If fringe heterosexuals are not fatal to opposite-sex marriage, why should fringe homosexuals be fatal to same-sex marriage?

I understand your point about not wanting to give your tacit approval to behavior you object to, but you do exactly that in terms of heterosexuality if you do not object to heterosexual kinksters having the right to marry. In other words, if a person wants to object to certain sexual behaviors, i.e., kink, then to avoid making a homophobic argument he has to be consistent in his objections. If you do not object to kinky heterosexuals getting married, how can you object to kinky homosexuals getting married? If kink (the behavior to which you do not want to give your tacit approval) is the disqualifying factor, then all kinksters need to be excluded. But that is not the argument you are making if I understand you correctly.

As for sex engaged in solely for gratification, any heterosexual couple that is infertile or has had one or both partners rendered reproductively non-operative presents you with the same problem you find with gays: sexual relations will only be engaged in for sexual gratification (though I must add from my own experience that sexual relations can be engaged in not for erotic gratification, but for a shared sense of intimacy and commitment. Making love to my husband is much more about sharing intimacy with him than achieving orgasm. If I chose to, I could have sex with many men, but I can be intimate with only one).

You wrote: “. . . I can not see adding a child requirement to keep a marriage in force . . .” and here is where I think, with respect, you beg the question (and you are not alone in this Heliotrope). If marriage is designed to promote pro-creation, then logically sterile opposite-sex couples have neither the need nor right for it since they cannot fulfill marriage’s raison d’etre.

A simple rejoinder is that a couple can adopt (which for me is a fine response considering my background), but regarding adoption as permissible then shifts marriage from being about pro-creation to being about raising a family. The new question raised is: do gays have the right to raise families?

A personal note: when I first came out, all I wanted was to have a family. It was not fashionable at that time to feel that way, but I told all the men I met that I wanted a husband. What I discovered was that even though I was gay, I still had the same desires to raise a family that heterosexuals did. I never imagined a life where my husband and I did not raise children. Back to the discussion:

So if creating the best environment for raising a family is the purpose of marriage (a premise I agree with), and gays are allowed to raise families, then preventing them from marrying is to prevent them from creating what society deems the best conditions under which to raise children, and, therefore, children may, through no fault of their own, be harmed. I find that unacceptable. If gays are allowed to raise children, then it logically follows that they must be allowed to raise children under the conditions society deems best since to do otherwise is prejudicial toward the children for no good reason.

As to your solution of civil unions with full faith and credit recognition: I agree that it is a great idea, but have deep reservations due to its impracticability. We are faced here with what I commented on earlier: secular society did not make a clean break with religious society when it established the secular version of marriage. My friends in New Jersey who have entered into civil unions face difficulties with companies, groups, organizations, etc both in- and out-of-state that refuse to recognize their unions. So they have unions in word only which do nothing to address their lack of liberties. The word “marriage” is so completely and complexly woven into society that to try to create an other-named equivalent is difficult to the point of impossibility (which may be why the institution of marriage has evolved over time instead of spinning off equivalent, but alternatively named variations every time it is challenged).

I agree that bare-ass-hanging-out-of-their-chaps gay men make my job more difficult. By the same token, people who object to all things gay just because they are gay complicate the efforts of people like you who try to look with care at the issues. The voices of those people who want to exchange ideas in a thoughtful manner are drowned out by those people who just want to sloganeer and shout at each other.

Lastly, there is a huge difference between same-sex marriage being recognized and the recognition of Sharia. For one thing, Sharia concerns the number of people who can be in a marriage. Same-sex marriage is about gender, not number. I have yet to be shown any evidence that the dynamic that arises between two men is fundamentally different from the one that arises between a man and a woman. Many couple friends of my husband and me function exactly as we do, facing the same issues and problems that we do. It appears to me that the fact of being a dyad is much more of a determining factor than the gender of its participants. Multiple-marriage is a completely different animal and must be examined with care on its own terms (since the United States forced the Mormons to give up polygamy in order for Utah to become a state, I see no reason that Sharia will make any headway).

Will there be people who try to tar same-sex marriage by raising the specter of Sharia? Of course, there will be. But the issues involved are so different as to make any serious consideration of the comparison laughable. The question that the issue of Sharia will raise is just how committed to the separation of church and state American society is as well as how much we want to be a nation governed by the laws of man and not a theocracy.

I oppose opening the door to the slippery slope of recognizing marriages which are largely based on actions that can be controlled by choice.

What do you mean by “controlled by choice?” Are you saying the homosexuality is a choice or are you referring to the choices that homosexuals make to live their lives?

So far as I can determine, homosexuality is not caused by a genetic force that can not be overcome. This is not to say that I am part of the “homosexual cure thyself” crowd.

Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice or is a psychological problem of some sort? Homosexual behavior is rather common in the animal kingdom. I wouldn’t suggest that we model our sexual behaviors after animals, but I would argue that having animals with the brains the size of a pea behave this way helps counter the notion of choice in the matter.

Civil unions coupled with a full faith and credit understanding is the best route for gays, in my opinion.

Would you support the idea of all governmentally recognized unions being called “civil unions” and leaving the term “marriage” for society and religion to define?

I do not agree with my straight, conservative brothers who oppose civil unions. Typically, they have no opinion on common-law marriage and I find that their views lack consistency.

The “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution is at the center of the problem with states recognizing non-traditional forms of marriage. As you have stated, apparently New York recognizes your marriage. Yet New York is currently trying to deny welfare rights to the multiple wives of an African resident. Therefore, New York does not seem to practice reciprocity. Since your marriage and that of the African man were performed outside the US, there is no “full faith and credit” issue involved. Consequently, I am not sure of the degree to which your marriage is recognized by New York. Do the state tax, property, inheritance, and guardianship laws make no distinctions between your marriage and the traditional marriage recognized by the common law?

I oppose changing the traditional requirements of state recognized marriage. I readily agree that the state should not prohibit a man and woman of different religions, color, ethnic backgrounds or different countries of origin from marrying. I oppose opening the door to the slippery slope of recognizing marriages which are largely based on actions that can be controlled by choice.

This is where the problem for homosexual marriage comes to the fore in my thinking. So far as I can determine, homosexuality is not caused by a genetic force that can not be overcome. This is not to say that I am part of the “homosexual cure thyself” crowd.

To the great detriment of many gays, there is a loud and obnoxious group of gays who want to shove their sexual acts and proclivities into the public eye and consciousness.

I am content not to judge whether homosexuals are engaging in “perverse” acts, so long as I am not tacitly challenged to give approval to those acts. In this regard, I fancy myself a bit of the libertarian.

As a person who sees the complications that beset homosexuals in the legal arena, I am moved to try to help find a solution that is beneficial and dignified. But watering traditional marriage down is not acceptable to me.

In truth, gays are genetic dead-enders. Society is not structured to find ways to end itself. I think that enormous strides were made when society determined that gays should be permitted to adopt children. I have had experience with those who have undergone a sex change. I find that the very careful psychological treatment that accompanies a sex change is critical and I applaud the medical community taking such precautions.

All of this is to say that the number of gays in the population is quite small and within those numbers are many who are quite socially balanced and others who are, frankly, openly addicted to their sexual identity and its many forms of gratification.

If we (the straight majority) permit the requirements for marriage to accept gays, can we keep the keep the radical gays out? Of course not. What differentiates gays from heterosexuals is that gays have “different” sex that is solely for the purpose of gratification. The same might also be said of childless heterosexuals, whether they are childless by nature or by choice. But I can not see adding a child requirement to keep a marriage in force any more than I can see changing the one man and one woman threshold.

Civil unions coupled with a full faith and credit understanding is the best route for gays, in my opinion.

As to the religious right, I would think that gays would be working hard to get their strongest voices to approve civil unions. Industry has been largely accommodating of taking on the benefits needs of gay couples. I really do not think that getting pastors to admit to the benefits of civil unions would be that tough a slog. Once a significant number of states permit civil unions, the full faith and credit clause will give them national meaning.

Gay marriage is not an idea whose time has come. Even in Europe where religion is laughably weak, gay marriage is not a state sanctioned condition. The 27 EU nations do not have to recognize same-sex unions. 10 do not. Additionally, France and Italy grant very limited rights to same-sex unions. Same-sex unions in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have gained considerable “social” rights in the past 20 years.

But note: the EU deals with “same-sex unions” and not marriage.

With the push by Islamic fundamentalists to jam Sharia into the common law systems in Europe, Canada, Australia and, soon, the United States, I predict the gay marriage issue will go down in flames. How can the state possibly accept the terms of gay activists while denying the demands of Islamic fundamentalists and their Sharia Trojan Horse?

My problem with civil unions is that they are neither portable nor consistently recognized. Friends in New Jersey who have gotten civil unions have had issues in this regard. If this problem could be solved, I would not care if they were called ham sandwiches. The terminology becomes important since privileges and liberties are often based on what word is used in denoting the union and not on the actual attributes of the union itself.

This situation stems from the fact that the term marriage has two applications — a secular one and a religious one. People often flip back and forth between the two without even realizing it. Companies and organizations (for the most part) accept proof of marriage from only a civil authority, so if my husband and I were to be married in our church (which does recognize same-sex marriage), almost no one would recognize it as an “actual” marriage (though we would have committed our union before God and not just the state).

This problem is rooted in the fact that centuries ago there was no concept of separation of church and state. But as the secular realm was established, one of the institutions that remained fuzzily defined was marriage. The consequences of this lack of intellectual rigor are now being felt. When a couple gets married today in a church, they are engaging in a double ceremony: a civil one and a religious one. But this distinction is obscured by using the same terminology for both events.

Marriage was further undermined with the introduction of domestic partnerships and other devices that attempted to provide “marriage lite” for same-sex couples. The irony is that if same-sex marriage had been permitted in the first place, then the damage to marriage brought about by domestic partnership agreements could have been avoided. In trying to save the patient, society actually increased its infirmity.

The fact is that there are many civil marriages that a person might consider not to be marriages from a religious point of view, e.g., divorced and re-married Catholics. Society seems to have found a way to deal with this duality between civil and religious marriages without resorting to new terminology. For example, divorced Catholics who cannot re-marry within the church, but do so in a civil ceremony are said to be married; they are not told that their only option is to enter into a civil union.

As for plural marriage, it is a problem in the United States as well with some Mormons out West. As you note, a discussion needs to be initiated about what types of relationships the state wants to encourage and those it wishes to discourage. My fear is that people will just hunker down in their traditions and not engage in dialogue. Beyond doubt, the world is a pluralistic place. But equally assured is the fact that all humans are given the wondrous gifts of reason and rationality that separate us from all other creatures and allow us to communicate with one another and build a just, free, and equal society.

If this solution would be acceptable, then traditional marriage could remain unaltered in its structure.

The Islamic practice of plural wives has become an issue in the legal systems of England, Denmark and Canada. We can not assume that polygamy is not an additional point of argument for redefining marriage.

At some point, we will have to examine the reason(s) why the state should take any role in the marriage process, save some health, mental competency and age restrictions. Meanwhile, I do not want to see the institution of marriage further rocked by pressures to expand it and redefine it.

No, I do not think there should be a back-sliding police. While I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I do think that that people who worry about the loss of traditional marriage should focus some attention on drive-thru divorce which is deleterious to the tradition of marriage in my opinion (I agree with you about pre-nups as well). For me, marriage should be about long-term, permanent commitment and drive-thru divorce laws make a mockery of that concept. A marriage that can be dissolved with no more effort than it takes to pay a parking ticket has no relationship to traditional marriage that I can see.

The problem was that when the divorce laws were revised there was no concomittant ratcheting down of the rights and privileges that come with marriage. Those rights and privileges were established in the belief that the two persons entering the marriage were intent on forming a permanent, committed bond. In effect, the privileges were the reward for taking on such a large responsibility.

As for my sham marriage, there is nothing sham about it since it is recognized in New York State. New York State recognizes out-of-state marriages that are valid where they are performed. What is currently illegal in New York State is to perform a same-sex marriage. For me, a sham marriage is the 55-hour matrimony of Britney Spears or one that undergoes a drive-thru divorce where children are involved. Whatever happened to “for better or worse, till death do us part?”

As you note, the traditional definition of marriage does not apply to people who are sterile or women beyond the age of bearing children. Since they are allowed to marry, the inability to bear children biologically does not seem to be an obstacle to marriage.

My parents could not have children so they adopted three (who, interestingly enough, have in turn adopted children). My family is just as much a family as one where the children are the biological progency of their parents. In fact, I think I got the better part of the deal when I listen to my friends who were raised by their biological parents talk about the abuse and neglect they experienced. Such stories make me skeptical about the argument that biological parents are the preferrable ones to raise children.

I do not see how allowing same-sex marriage would interfere with or impede keeping track of families or property rights. In fact, it would help with such processes since more relationships would be formed and, therefore, be part of a census.

Allowing same-sex marriage will also help with the replacement population since while gay men would have to adopt or use a surrogate, lesbians can give birth while married to each other. Same-sex marriages can also be the basis for families for children who are not able to be raised by their biological parents. Clearly, the state has an interest in seeing that such children are taken care of.

As for civil unions, I have no objection so long as they provide identical rights and privileges as marriage. If my husband and I are willing to commit before the state (as you write) we should enjoy the same liberties as other couples (unless by dint of the fact of being gay, we do not merit such liberties).

Marriage in 2008 — with the prologues of pre-nups and the breezy availability of divorce — is but distantly related to traditional marriage. To oppose same-sex marriage because it deviates from traditional definitions of marriage is to ignore the reality of marriage in 2008 (of course if you also want to see divorce reform so that it is granted in only the rarest of cases and the abolition of pre-nups, then, while I will still disagree with you, I will admire you for not being a hypoctrire in your positions).

Nope! You have dodged them all quite nicely. I asked: What combinations of marriage do you oppose and why?

You did ask that question, but then you launched into a tirade using the “man marries goat” argument to imply what views we would take on the subject. The goat emphasizes was yours, not mine.

I answered the portion of comment #28 that was directed at me. I leave the rest of the comment to the other people to whom is was directed.

I answered your question as pertains to 1) bestiality, 2) incest, and 3) polygamy. If you want to ask me how I would react to other types of marriages feel free to ask. I’m certainly not going to go through the entire dictionary and consider every noun to explain why “noun 1″ shouldn’t be allowed to marry “noun 2″.

You feasted on the man and his goat bait with great relish. Now, perchance, you will answer the actual question. Careful, though, it will require careful thinking.

I’ll ignore the childish insults and answer you. You can glean my stance on marriages by reading what I’ve already posted. I support marriage between two consenting members of the same sex using the current criteria for straight couples (e.g., age of consent, mental health status, relationship proximity). Beyond that, I will consider the facts to the best of my ability and give you my opinion if you ask for it.

You feasted on the man and his goat bait with great relish. Now, perchance, you will answer the actual question. Careful, though, it will require careful thinking.

You chose to ignore the question. Therefore, I may assume that you do not have any combinations of marriage you oppose or that in opposing certain combinations, you can not give reasons.

I most certainly did not ignore the question. I responded very specifically:

“There would be a very valid reason for this preventing this type of marriage. An animal is not capable of consent on a human level, therefore, it is rape.”

As to the “gay triplet brothers”, the topic of incest was covered in another topic on this blog. In summary, I oppose incestuous relationships, regardless of whether or not they can produce children, because of the psychological damages that occur. I’m not a mental health professional. Therefore, I cannot explain the problems in that much depth, but based on what I’ve read, these types of relationships are harmful to those involved.

As to polygamy, I expressed my views on that in an earlier post.

Are there any other scenarios you’d like me to answer?

I am moved by your commitment to monogamy and working at keeping your partnership healthy and in tact. That is the ideal meaning of marriage and you have expressed it well.

I remain curious, however, why marriage is so crucial to you. You have, for all intents and purposes, a sham marriage. It is not recognized by the State of New York. (I am assuming that “Brian in Brooklyn” means Brooklyn, New York.)

I was married in 1964, before no-fault divorce. In Florida, we had to apply for a license and our intentions were published in the newspaper and posted on the wall in the courthouse for a two week period. During those two weeks, anyone could step forward and object or one of us could bolt and run. But not a soul in the license bureau required any “proof of deep commitment.”

Marriage has been state regulated to protect minors, the mentally incompetent, to avoid the medical problems associated with incest, etc. The state has favored marriage as the best way to keep track of families and property rights. The state has a vested interest in maintaining (at minimum) a replacement population. Marriage has worked as a great census tool in managing both the needs and statistics of the population.

Homosexual marriage, in the traditional sense, is an oxymoron. I will grant that marriage between barren heterosexuals does not fulfill the traditional meaning of marriage either.

In addition to no-fault divorce, I would add that pre-nuptial agreements are also a cold and calculating way to enter into wedded “bliss.”

If you want to see the natural progress of taking the church out of marriage and the state becoming lax in its requirements, you need only to look at Sweden. I suppose they operate perfectly well, according to their wishes and norms, but they have reduced marriage to a minor option for those who care.

I am comfortable with civil unions for gay couples who want the solemnizing power of committing themselves before the state to standards of propriety. From my perspective, it separates the committed gays from the butterflies on parade.

It has taken a long time and a great deal of research on my part, but I oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a definition and when you change the terms, you destroy the concept.

I think the problem is that marriage in this country has already lost that hallowed ground you speak of. For one, no-fault divorce reduces the solemnity of the institution.

There are also couples who are non-monogamous, but allowed to remain married. In fact, proof of monogamy is not required either to enter into marriage or to be permitted to remain married.

My husband and I got married because we thought it was silly to go on calling each other “boyfriend.” The relationship naturally progressed to increasingly deep levels of commitment. If it hadn’t, we would have ended it since for both of us, marriage (and the deep commitment it entails) was what we wanted.

Also complicating the issue is that the government provides so many benefits to married couples, but lets couples self-regulate with regard to the rules under which their marriage is lived. For marriage to be that hallowed tradition again, you would need much more oversight on a social/community basis than we have now. The problem is that many people would regard such oversight as an invasion of their privacy and a restriction of their liberty to live as they choose.

On the one hand, people in this society want to be allowed to do their own thing. On the other hand, they do not want to be discriminated against for doing their own thing. Making divorce easier faciliatates the liberty of people to get out of marriages that are mistakes. On the other hand, it undermines the notion that marriage is a hallowed event signalling a lifetime commitment.

My husband and I talk all the time about how our marriage is the final relationship for both of us. When we have problems, we struggle through them, but there is no thought on either of our parts about separating. The words of the Quebec marriage ceremony (where we were wed) are quite moving, and we often re-read them.

I personally believe that much anguish gay men feel would be reduced if they had the option of marriage. Those who did not want marriage would be free to live as they choose, but those who do want marriage could self-identify and be able to recognize one another. Certain stages of maturity are not reached until a person makes a deep commitment to another person and then hopefully children.

The problem is that government no longer requires proof of deep commitment before granting a marriage license to heterosexuals. Britney Spears anyone? The institution of marriage has been lowered, but allowing gays to marry is not going to drag it to new depths. In fact, it may actually add some lustre with an influx of men and women who do believe in the hallowed nature of the institution; believe in it so much that they continue to fight for it against daunting obstacles.

Seriously, trotting out the “man marries goat” logic makes you look like an alarmist. Let’s keep the debate about what rules should apply to consent adult humans.

You, sir, would be entirely correct had I proposed marriage between a goat and his man. However, I posed this question to the four of you:

What combinations of marriage do you oppose and why? Would one form be a marriage between a goat and his man?

You chose to ignore the question. Therefore, I may assume that you do not have any combinations of marriage you oppose or that in opposing certain combinations, you can not give reasons.

Run back through my “alarmist” use of the quotes from the four of you and take out the goat and man union and substitute “adult gay triplet brothers.” That combo meets the definitions of Houndentenor, Dave, Kevin and Naturally Gay. But it does introduce the restriction on incest and the union of multiple partners. (Of course, the incest in a dead-ender vis a vis gays, so that one should be easy to permit.) Well, I will leave it to the four of you to explain the compelling state interest in keeping the three brothers gay from being married.

I anxiously await your instruction. I would ask the California Supreme Court, but I doubt they will take my call. Therefore, I turn to the four of you in their stead.

It’s often said that liberals think and act out of emotion and feelings

That’s because its true. Actually, its an understatement.

well that’s a whole lot better than having none, which is clearly the issue for many here.

See! There you go again! Do you need a tissue?

Actually, Dave, Conservatives care far more than liberals. We care enough to investigate what actually works. Liberals don’t. You care only enough to throw other people’s money at a problem with no regard for whether it actually helps or not. That’s not caring, that’s self-indulgence.

A complete lack of respect for others is not conservative, it is uncivilized.

The only people I lack respect for are those who have earned it.

And let us never OVERESTIMATE the force of Naturally Gay, Kevin, Dave or Houndentenor’s human intellect (or the intellects of their goat-life-partners).

Ah, the person attacks come out. I was wondering when that would start up again. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that, even though I support the concept of gay marriage or civil unions, I don’t necessarily agree with the views of Kevin, Dave, or Houndentenor. Just lump us all together rather than debate our different viewpoints. It’s easier, I guess.

Ergo, since a goat and his man are not a heterosexual couple and there will be no children, there must be, in Naturally Gay’s logic, some other justification for preventing such a marriage.

There would be a very valid reason for this preventing this type of marriage. An animal is not capable of consent on a human level, therefore, it is rape.

Seriously, trotting out the “man marries goat” logic makes you look like an alarmist. Let’s keep the debate about what rules should apply to consent adult humans.

And let us never OVERESTIMATE the force of Naturally Gay, Kevin, Dave or Houndentenor’s human intellect (or the intellects of their goat-life-partners).

What combinations of marriage do you oppose and why? Would one form be a marriage between a goat and his man? Naturally Gay tells us:

I’m asking whether or not that difference is a justification for making marital rights exclusive to heterosexual couples. So far, I have yet to see a compelling argument for denying gay marriage beyond “because it’s tradition” or “it’s what’s best for children” without any real explanation of why it would be a detriment.

Ergo, since a goat and his man are not a heterosexual couple and there will be no children, there must be, in Naturally Gay’s logic, some other justification for preventing such a marriage.

Houndentenor informs us:

But what I find most odd is that you are falling into the political correctness trap of being more concerned what something is called rather than what it is. I don’t care if you call it marriage equality or marriage freedom as long as I have the right to marry.

So, clearly, Houndentenor and the goat fit his terms. “I don’t care if you call it marriage equality or marriage freedom as long as I have the right to marry….(my goat.)”

Now, Dave gets right to the point:

It’s often said that liberals think and act out of emotion and feelings, well that’s a whole lot better than having none, which is clearly the issue for many here. A complete lack of respect for others is not conservative, it is uncivilized.

Opposing a goat and his man is……..uncivilized. Now we can’t have that.

It is Kevin who wins the day by advising that:

Here’s how to fix the whole issue….stop having government entities issue marriage licenses and stop giving special benefits (ie tax breaks) to people who consider themselves married. That way, n one would care that the government is treating people in an un-equal way, and marriage can be a purely personal statement by the individuals involved.

Heck, yes! Forget marriage. Let everyone take his/her partner of choice into the circle of patient indulgence in the light of the moon and exchange fingernail clippings and make the sign of the patient tapeworm. And, should the magic wear off, just yell “Jello makes me itch” three times into the mircrowave and the union is dissolved.

So far, my eyes have been opened wide to the destruction that limiting marriage to unrelated adult male and female couples has wrought. It is clear that the benefits to be accrued to society as a whole by extending marriage to same sex couples is not only vast, but undeniable. Naturally Gay, Dave, Kevin and Houndentenor show clearly that one’s personal predilections should trump any stodgy societal norm or tradition.

Let us never underestimate the force of human intellect.

Well, certainly a lot more than you, considering that Republicans got behind the civil rights movement long before it became fashionable among Democrats. Furthermore, our comments would have been consistent with the principles that we have explained here (and that have clearly gone right over your head). Laws that limited minority access to public accommodations were conclusively unconstitutional because differences in skin pigmentation were simply not a rational basis for two sets of laws. Not a hard call in the least.

The only people on this blog saying shocking and distasteful things about Brown v. Board of Education are you and your ilk. Gays like you don’t even pause for a second to consider how unbelievably moronic and ignorant you sound when you start comparing your own “plight” to that of other groups who actually WERE subjected to draconian discrimination and racism in the past. I’d like to see you pull that number in the presence of some seasoned black Americans and see how quickly and efficiently they would “take you to school.” You don’t have a fuc*ing clue.

Meanwhile, the facts that have gotten lost in this necessary and protracted debate about the Court’s ruling is that in California, gays now enjoy greater protection than straight people from crime (hate crimes laws), protection from employment discrimination (Fair Employment & Housing Act), and now have their pick between basic cable (domestic partnership) and the deluxe satellite package (gay marriage).

Kevin, I hope you don’t live in California, because what are you going to do with yourself when you suddenly wake up one morning and realize you can’t think of anything else to cry about? Who will you be, Kevin, if not the tragically oppressed gay victim, clinging to your security blanket of irrational fears and imagined hatred everywhere you go? How will you handle the crushing depression when you’re at the gay pride parade and you realize…every float is just a bunch of guys dancing around in harnesses and their underwear without a banner demanding “equal rights now!” anywhere in sight? What then, Kevin?