AmericanElephant, again, that was never my point. I think we should encourage all committed couples to get married whether or not they have children. The genders of the couples do not matter to me. Further, I’ll be okay whether or not I can get married. My argument is that I believe it will better the gay community and society as a whole, and will not hurt in encouraging the nuclear family. Obviously, you disagree. So it seems like there isn’t much more to say here.

no one is saying gay people should marry a person of the opposite sex

We agree. I’ll just go further and say a gay person SHOULD NOT marry a person of the opposite sex.

holy cow, you just dont get it do you? Its not necessary for the government to go sticking their nose in everyones business to find out if and when theyre going to have kids.

No. I do get your argument. I really do.

Just getting men and women to marry is enough to ensure that when children are born they are born into wedlock.

And that’s your argument. Fine. I respect it. I simply believe there is more to the argument than what you give. Sure, it’s up to the people to decide what marriage is, the purpose, and who gets married. This has been changing over time. So we’ll see in the next few years or so, what the people will decide what marriage is, the purpose, and who gets married. We simply disagree whether or not it should include same sex couples or not.

You really need to learn the difference between the words “encourage” and “force”.

I get the difference. For example, I’m saying not only should we not “force” gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex, we should not “encourage” it either. However, I also believe that we should “encourage” a gay person to marry someone of the same sex.

Do try not to make ridiculous meaningless anecdotal arguments.

Actually, I agree with you here. Not that I think anecdotes are ridiculous or meaningless. But they do not make the argument for either side of the issue. And I’ve seen people on both sides making such claims as “proof” of their argument. Some will even provide links to their anecdotes, as if that somehow bolsters their case, and repeatedly do so. Yikes!

My parrents divorced, My father beat my mother, My father molested me. did I forget to say he was ”christian”.

And Stalin was an atheist who killed millions. And jeffery Dahmer was a homosexual who ate young men. I win.

Do try not to make ridiculous meaningless anecdotal arguments.

The war is over. Gay Men and women want equality.

WHat war? You have equality. What you WANT is for society to tell you that anal sex is just as valuable to society as reproduction and children. You are asking for two very unequal things to be declared equal. They are not. Period.

Nonetheless, Gay men and women are no less American than anyone else is.

Nobody ever said they were. What we said is that reproduction is more valuable to society than anal sex. And it is. grow up. drop the victimhood. Youre free. Youre equal. But quit asking society to declare same sex relationships as valuable to society as bringing new life into the world. Its not. It never will be. Get over it.

AmericanElephant, I’m not sure how this tears down heterosexual marriage,

Because youre claiming that if the people want the purpose of marriage to be encouraging the nuclear family they have to kick everyone who doesnt have kids out of the institution, which is, of course, tearing down the institution just because it doesnt include you.

I disagree, though, that a gay person getting married to a person of the opposite sex is beneficial to society. The problem is a culture that makes a young gay adult believe that they should marry a person of the opposite sex.

no one is saying gay people should marry a person of the opposite sex

I’m still trying to understand what I see as an inconsistency. Yes, I understand that couples change their mind about not having children. But what if they don’t? My brother and his wife have no intention of having children, and at this point, it soon won’t matter if they change their mind. Is their marriage not at the same level as one with children?

There is no inconsistency. Encouraging men and women to marry furthers the goal whether they have children or not. the more men and women marry, the more children will be born into legally binding nuclear families. The more men and women dont marry the more children will be born out of wedlock. it really is a very simple formula. Youre just hacked off that it doesnt include homosexuality, so youre trying to pick it apart and tear it down and find some reason why it cant be allowed to exist as it does.

Let’s say we have a couple who gets married that has no intention of having children because the woman does not want children (or is infertile). Shouldn’t they not get married, and encourage the man who does want children to find another suitable woman who also wants children?

holy cow, you just dont get it do you? Its not necessary for the government to go sticking their nose in everyones business to find out if and when theyre going to have kids. Just getting men and women to marry is enough to ensure that when children are born they are born into wedlock. And yes, people decide not to get married for precisely those reasons all the time. But the government doesnt need to meddle in peoples decisions and has no business doing so. getting men and women married furthers the goal all by itself.

Let’s say we have a couple who gets married that has no intention of having children because the woman does not want children (or is infertile). Shouldn’t they not get married, and encourage the man who does want children to find another suitable woman who also wants children?

You really need to learn the difference between the words “encourage” and “force”. We already encourage ALL men and women to get married to a person of the opposite sex by offering incentives. No one is saying anyone should be made to marry someone they dont want to. Just that marriage is good for society, so here, if you marry someone we’ll give you a cookie.

Sorry, Robert, but annual gay pride festivals are the most visible public expression of current gay culture, its values, interests, priorities, political beliefs, identity and behavior, period. The festivals are planned by armies of gays starting the day after the previous festival concludes, and its primary objective is to attract as much media attention (and scrutiny) as possible. The message of “pride” is unmistakable–it seeks to convey to everyone else in the community that this is who the gays are and whatever is expressed is to be uniformly celebrated as positive and nothing to be hidden or ashamed of. In short, this is how the millions of gay people who participate WANT to be perceived by the community and the greater the visibility the festivals attract from people outside the gay community, then the more successful the event has been.

So, your argument that the festivals do not “represent the gay community at large” is just plain wrong. The festivals by their very nature “represent the gay community at large” because it is planned, staffed, performed and attended by millions of gays “in the community,” and the fact that they become larger and crazier and have greater attendance every year proves that the gay community is perfectly happy with how it has CHOSEN to represent itself to the public. The fact that you may not identify with anyone involved with the events is irrelevant and at most proves that you are detached from “the community” and what it stands for.

Thus, your admonition that the gay community “never should be THOUGHT OF as such” is completely misdirected. The gay community has absolutely no right to be “thought of” by outsiders as anything greater or lesser than what is on full display on the floats coming down main street, or worse, whatever is nakedly skanking around in public on Folsom Street in SFO. If the gay community would prefer to be “thought of” differently, then maybe someday the spectacles currently displayed with “PRIDE” every year will be changed. But until then, they can expect to be sized up by exactly what they enthusiastically put out there in the public’s collective face.

And speaking of perceptions, it’s pretty hypocritical of you to be indignant that society might actually perceive gays in the precise way that they choose to present themselves in public, but then gripe about “people who would rather shoot you than to extend the same rights to all.” I’m sorry, but I must have missed the EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WHO WOULD RATHER BLOW HOMOS AWAY THAN LET THEM GET MARRIED float in the parade this year. Apparently in your world, if a gay man walks down Folsom Street in a leather jockstrap and then climbs up on a table and gets gang-plowed by 17 guys while an audience of 200 watches, then it’s totally unacceptable for anyone to dare to even “think” of gays as being somewhat promiscuous. But if a Christian conservative expresses opposition to same-sex marriage, then it’s perfectly fine and dandy for you to cavalierly say that his beliefs include killing you with a firearm with impunity if it would keep you from having a right to marry.

Heliotrope, again, thanks for your comments. I think I’ve stated before that you have made a good argument for your position, and I’ll repeat it now. I respect yours and others’ position on this issue, even if we disagree.

What the crime here is, most Americans can only identify with the Gay community by what they see at ” Pride” day.
That does not represent the Gay community at large, and never should be thought of as such.

Well, I do support full marriage rights for Gays and Lesbians. I have no problems with it, but I do however have issues with narrow minded, not so right people who would rather shoot you than to extend the same rights to all.

Too many folks who are on both sides of the issue are not particularly thoughtful of the questions I asked.

The state has strong reasons to regulate marriage. How we arrive at modifying those regulations is the challenge for those who wish to change them as well for those who want to hold fast to what is in place.

I hope you do not feel patronized by my questions. I think you have given excellent responses and you have provided an honest example of how this social debate should be conducted.

AmericanElephant, I’m not sure how this tears down heterosexual marriage, but if you really feel that, I guess I can’t change your mind.

Sure we should, and we do. We don’t require it, it’s not compulsive — but we encourage it because we deem it beneficial to society. And we leave it up to individuals to decide if its the right choice for them.

I disagree, though, that a gay person getting married to a person of the opposite sex is beneficial to society. The problem is a culture that makes a young gay adult believe that they should marry a person of the opposite sex.

You are. You just got done saying we should discourage some men and women from marrying because they cant procreate.

As you noted later on, that is not the case. I’m just noting what I believe is an inconsistency on your part. I know you believed you addressed it, but I still disagree with your argument here.

Sarcasm duly noted, but the problem with your point is that couples who never intend to have children often change their minds (like my sister who is due any time now), or get pregnant by accident. And we’ve all heard plenty of stories of couples who have tried and tried to have children to no avail who suddenly get pregnant after they had long since given up hope. We want to encourage all these children to be born into nuclear families as well.

No sarcasm intended. I’m still trying to understand what I see as an inconsistency. Yes, I understand that couples change their mind about not having children. But what if they don’t? My brother and his wife have no intention of having children, and at this point, it soon won’t matter if they change their mind. Is their marriage not at the same level as one with children?

Let’s say we have a couple who gets married that has no intention of having children because the woman does not want children (or is infertile). Shouldn’t they not get married, and encourage the man who does want children to find another suitable woman who also wants children? As you suggested, you would say it’s that man’s ultimate choice to get married (to the woman who doesn’t want to have children). I simply argue the same regarding a gay man who would choose to marry another man as opposed to marry a woman simply because they are physically able to have children (even if they chose not to have children).

The fact remains though, that as long as we encourage ALL men and women to marry, the more children will be born into legally bound, nuclear families. And that is good for society.

Okay, we disagree here. I agree with you that we should encourage nuclear families and all that. But encouraging ALL men and women to marry (persons of the opposite sex) is NOT good for society.

That is all well and good, and no doubt there are countless individual reasons for getting married, but as far as society is concerned, the people get to determine if and why there is reason for government to encourage marriage. and they get to decide what those reasons are. And I am aware of no state that has said the reason society should subsidize marriage is for any other reason than procreation and the best interests of children.

That may be so. Just giving my opinion here like you are. Suppose in the near future same sex marriage is allowed (so that, according to you, society would then see an additional purpose of marriage), is your opinion going to change?

In other words gay families and nuclear families are at odds with eachother. We cannot claim that the nuclear family is the ideal if we put gay families on the same level.

I don’t see this as some zero-sum thing. It’s not like I’m advocating that if 1000 same sex couples get married, that means that 1000 opposite sex couples who would otherwise get married now can’t.

I think AE has the best response to that.

NDT, I disagree that AE’s analogy is valid here.

basically, they claim that, because some heterosexuals are imperfect, i.e. infertile, that gays and lesbians that are all imperfect should be allowed to participate.

I disagree with your notion of imperfect to describe couples in which one or both are infertile, couples that do not intend to have children, or same sex couples.

Thanks, heliotrope, I appreciate it.

1) Why, in your opinion, should the state regulate marriage at all?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Some (on both sides of the argument) have said it would be best if the state got completely out of the marriage business, and just have civil unions (for gay and straight couples), then leave it up to the church if they want to marry the couple. I would be fine with that, and that is probably the best solution (but it seems unrealistic that would happen). Even if it did, I believe the state would still need to regulate civil unions, so that we don’t have adults having a civil union with a 10 year old, a dog, or a close relative.

2) What should a gay couple hope to achieve from being married that they cannot achieve by living together?

For one thing, they would then get the same legal benefits that a married straight couple would have. Sure, you could argue that with time, effort, a good lawyer, and a few bucks, you can get many of the same benefits, and that’s fine and works for some couples who can afford to do so. But to me, it’s almost like telling a class of citizens that they can only vote if they take the time, effort, a good lawyer, and a few thousand bucks or so, where as the rest of the citizens simply have to turn 18 in order to vote.

The other reason is for gay children and teens growing up. Straight kids see that getting married as a goal at sometime after becoming an adult. Right now, gay kids don’t see that. It is something, that at this moment, is something that they will always fall short on. If it was just marriage, maybe this wouldn’t be a problem. But with the acceptance of same sex marriage (hopefully) there will be an overall acceptance of our gay teens. Hopefully, we’ll get passed the days where gay teens are no longer ridiculed and/or excoriated by their peers, their parents, etc., simply for being gay. Yes, it’s possible that we can have this without having same sex marriage, but I see these two things as being connected.

If you feel that the state should regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) What should the state regulations be? 1b) And why should gay marriage be included and not other forms? 1c) On what authority do these regulations rest?

Again, I’m not sure I understand your questions here, so I’ll do my best and try to answer.

For 1a, the only thing that I advocate at this point is to simply change the definition of married is to eliminate the “of the opposite sex” requirement and keep everything else the same. (Actually, the only other thing I would change, whether or not same sex marriage happens, is to require all states to have 18 as the minimum age for marriage, but perhaps this should be a debate in some other forum).

For 1b, when you say “other forms,” I assume your referring marriage between close relatives, with children, non-human animals or plants, or polygamy. Personally, I believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is as valid as heterosexuality. I don’t find anything immoral about it, and, as with heterosexuality, is fine when expressed responsibly. As such, allowing and encouraging gay persons to find that special someone to marry, and all the other things that encompass marriage, such as monogamy, would be beneficial to gay persons and society as a whole.

I cannot say the same thing for the other relationship forms. There is, in my view, inherent dangers in allowing close relatives to marry, and not just genetic problems that result from children from these relationships. The problem with pedophilia and bestiality is that it does not involve two consenting adults. The problem with polygamy is, well no monogamy. Of course, simply banning marriage for these types of relationships is not going to stop incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and promiscuity. But we shouldn’t be encouraging these types of relationships by allowing these types of marriages to occur.

1c, ultimately, it’s the people of the state. I am fully aware that despite my advocating same sex marriage, it isn’t going to happen unless the majority of voters (or at least a significant minority of voters) believe that marriage should have this modification to its definition. I believe I (and others) have made an excellent case. But unless there are enough people who also feel that way, I realize it isn’t going to happen.

If you feel that the state should not regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) Has marriage been reduced to anarchy?

I don’t think so. I’m probably alone here, even among those who support same sex marriage. I believe that marriage is stronger today than it was in the past. Sure, things looked better in the past, because marriages lasted longer, less divorces, and all. But if the only thing that was holding a couple in which one or both were miserable, was that it was too tough to dissolve the marriage, doesn’t make marriage strong. I’m impressed today when people stay married for a long time, despite the relative ease it is to get a divorce today. Perhaps the solution here is some middle ground.

Anyway, I hope I answered your questions. If you think I misunderstood, please clarify, and I’ll try again to answer your questions.

I think AE has the best response to that.

If the intention is to encourage as many people as possible to marry a person of the opposite sex and start nuclear families, offering the same incentive to do something entirely different is counter-productive. Its as if you want to encourage more people to drive hybrids because “its good for the environment” by giving them a tax break if they buy one, and then giving the same incentive to people who drive Hummers, because, after all that stimulates the economy too.

Furthermore, I would point out the logic being used here to argue for gay “marriage”; basically, they claim that, because some heterosexuals are imperfect, i.e. infertile, that gays and lesbians that are all imperfect should be allowed to participate. Again, the analogy is arguing that because some sighted people are bad drivers, that all blind people should be allowed to drive.

where did I tear down heterosexual marriage in my post?

By trying to assert that encouraging the nuclear family can’t be the purpose of marriage because we encourage all men and women to marry even though some of them cant or have no intention to have children.

That’s fine. Except we should NOT encourage everyone to marry a person of the oppositie sex.

Sure we should, and we do. We don’t require it, it’s not compulsive — but we encourage it because we deem it beneficial to society. And we leave it up to individuals to decide if its the right choice for them.

But you’ve made the point of what you believe the reason for encouraging marriage is, having children.

No, I’ve asserted what the people have said the reason for encouraging marriage is…

“The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.” ~ Supreme Court of Washington State

but I really don’t think heterosexuals who cannot or will not have children should marry. We should, at the very least discourage it, because these couples are attempting to take away an institution that encourages nuclear families.

Sarcasm duly noted, but the problem with your point is that couples who never intend to have children often change their minds (like my sister who is due any time now), or get pregnant by accident. And we’ve all heard plenty of stories of couples who have tried and tried to have children to no avail who suddenly get pregnant after they had long since given up hope. We want to encourage all these children to be born into nuclear families as well.

But as I said above, gays want to destroy the general test of one member of each of the sexes required for procreation, NOT because it doesnt work, but because it excludes them.

I get all you’re saying here. But I’m not the one who is making the ability to procreate in order to marry a condition.

You are. You just got done saying we should discourage some men and women from marrying because they cant procreate. The fact remains though, that as long as we encourage ALL men and women to marry, the more children will be born into legally bound, nuclear families. And that is good for society.

But again, I don’t advocate these measures, as I believe there is more than the purpose of procreation for marriage.

That is all well and good, and no doubt there are countless individual reasons for getting married, but as far as society is concerned, the people get to determine if and why there is reason for government to encourage marriage. and they get to decide what those reasons are. And I am aware of no state that has said the reason society should subsidize marriage is for any other reason than procreation and the best interests of children.

I guess we disagree that marrying same sex couples and having an institution to encourage nuclear families are mutually exclusive.

You can disagree all you want, but if we elevate same sex couples to the same level as the nuclear family, then by definition we cannot claim that the nuclear family is the ideal.

You apparently believe that if same sex couples do get married, that we no longer have an institution to encourage a nuclear family. If that’s your premise, then I or anyone else can answer your question. I believe that this premise is incorrect.

Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. It is simple logic. If we start giving all the same incentives to people who intend to have and raise children outside the nuclear family ideal as we give to people to encourage them TO have children within the nuclear family ideal, then we can no longer claim the purpose of the institution is to encourage the ideal of the nuclear family because we are encouraging “contra-nuclear” families just as much.

In other words gay families and nuclear families are at odds with eachother. We cannot claim that the nuclear family is the ideal if we put gay families on the same level.

Which of course is exactly what this argument is all about in the first place. Gays WANT society to say that their relationships are just as important and just as valuable to society as the relationships that bring life into the world and replenish society.

In other words, gays want society to lie to them. That is what the gay marriage debate is all about.

No it isn’t. I have found this to be a more apt term than “homophobia” to describe anti-gay animus.

I believe heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples and I am neither a self-loathing homosexual nor do I have animus towards gays. Indeed, I think that my recognition and acceptance of the fact that children come from heterosexuality which absolutely makes it better and more valuable to society makes me a more well balanced and realistic person than most gays. The animus and self-loathing I see comes from gays who are trying desperately to believe the falsehood that their relationships are just as important and valuable as the relationships that create life and renew society. They arent! Period. Deal.

There is plenty of proven harm caused by polygamy, mainly the reduction of available spouses

All marriage reduces the number of available spouses, so, sorry, that one doesn’t fly.

There is no harm between non-reproductive relationships between [related] adults.

Fabulous, so we’ve just proven that if the purpose of marriage isn’t reproduction, or isnt solely reproduction, as it would have to be to allow gays, that there is no longer any logical reason to prohibit polygamy or the marriage of relations. As I’ve said 100 times, if the purpose of marriage centers around reproduction, and promoting the nuclear family, then the restrictions against same sex couples, polygamist marriages, and marriages between relatives all make sense. Once the purpose is no longer centered on procreation, and the nuclear family, all logical restrictions on those become instead arbitrary and illogical.

These are not analogous to gay marriage. Blind people are not allowed to drive because they cannot see the road. Children are not allowed to vote because they are not of the age of consent. Women are not allowed in combat roles on the front lines because they are not as physically capable as men. Men are not allowed to determine if their children live or are aborted because they’re not the ones carrying the baby.

And no same sex couple has both testicles and a womb. I’m afraid they are perfectly analogous.

You seem to hold a zero-sum view of marriage. I agree with Pat that there is more than just the encouragement (via social engineering) of the so-called “nuclear family”

You may agree with pat til you are both blue in the face, but you and pat don’t define the purpose of marriage — the people do. And the people, through initiative and their legislatures have made it clear that the reason government gets involved in marriage is to encourage the nuclear family:

“The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.” ~ Supreme Court of Washington State

Now are they mutually exclusive? Of course they are. If the intention is to encourage as many people as possible to marry a person of the opposite sex and start nuclear families, offering the same incentive to do something entirely different is counter-productive. Its as if you want to encourage more people to drive hybrids because “its good for the environment” by giving them a tax break if they buy one, and then giving the same incentive to people who drive Hummers, because, after all that stimulates the economy too.

And yes, the term “nuclear family” may only go back to 1947, I’ll take your word for it, but I assure you, the concept goes back millenia.

You are not required to have children even if you are married.

That’s correct. But the beauty of the institution is that it doesnt require men and women to have children if they dont want to, by simply getting men and women to marry it ensure that when children ARE born, they are born into a nuclear family.

Beautiful in its simplicity. And yet gays are adamant that they WILL pound their square peg into that round hole no matter what — even if it destroys the institution.

If you feel that the state should regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) What should the state regulations be? 1b) And why should gay marriage be included and not other forms? 1c) On what authority do these regulations rest?

If you feel that the state should not regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) Has marriage been reduced to anarchy?

Wow, that was loaded, NDT. By the way, when did you stop beating your husband?

Sorry, but I don’t regarding marrying my partner as “cheapening” marriage. If you feel that your doing so, that’s your problem, not mine.

A better option would be to confront the promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors in the community directly; that would not only be good for gay people, but for society as a whole, and it would accomplish the same thing without having to cheapen or redefine marriage.

Marriage or not, eliminating promiscuity and irresponsible behaviors is a great goal. I’ve advocated a two-sided approach for it. You still advocate excusing those who excoriate their children for being gay.

And your claim that it has been proved that same sex marriage will not lessen promiscuity is false. We haven’t had any tradition of same sex marriage in this country or elsewhere yet. We still have parents telling their children that they’re awful for being homosexual let alone have marriage. So, if I’m right, it will take time to tell if the promiscuity gap will close or not.

A better option would be to confront the promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors in the community directly; that would not only be good for gay people, but for society as a whole, and it would accomplish the same thing without having to cheapen or redefine marriage.

Pat,
You set out to answer the question I asked, but didnt, and like NDT observed, instead try to tear down heterosexual marriage.

AmericanElephant, where did I tear down heterosexual marriage in my post?

The answer to your question is simple.
1. We encourage everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex, because regardless of individual fertitlity or intention, if all men and women are married, all children will be born into a nuclear family. And the more men and women are married to each other, the more children will be born into nuclear families. And

That’s fine. Except we should NOT encourage everyone to marry a person of the oppositie sex. We should not encourage those who cannot commit to another person to marry, even if the wife can have lots of children. We certainly shouldn’t encourage gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex.

2. We are not the Soviet Union: we are not communist China. We don’t tell people how many children they must or must not have. The government has no business being that intrusive. We encourage what we deem beneficial with incentives.

That’s fine. If a couple gets married, then I agree we shouldn’t be intrusive and demand deadlines on when they should have children. But you’ve made the point of what you believe the reason for encouraging marriage is, having children. And you believe that this is the reason that same sex couples should be banned from being married. But, as far as I can see, (and correct me if I’m wrong) you are fine with hetersexual couples who cannot or will not have children from being married. I haven’t seen you say anything like, “Look, I don’t want to change the laws and I don’t want to be intrusive, but I really don’t think heterosexuals who cannot or will not have children should marry. We should, at the very least discourage it, because these couples are attempting to take away an institution that encourages nuclear families.”

It is the difference between a general test and a specific test. The general test is that the marriage include one member of each sex required to make nuclear families. You are proposing that we should have a specific and intrusive test, requiring people to prove their fertility and their intentions to have children for no better reason than because gays feel bad that they can’t even pass the general test. The problem with your argument is that, like my sister who is currently pregnant, couples who never intended to have children change their minds. Other couples who never intended to have children get pregnant accidentally and, thank God, decide to have and keep the child. And likewise, countless couples who have fertitlity problems end up having children. I think we’ve all heard stories of couples who try and try to have kids for years to no avail, and then one day, after theyve long given up, they get pregnant. Your test would exclude these people.

I get all you’re saying here. But I’m not the one who is making the ability to procreate in order to marry a condition.

But if I did share your procreation for marriage condition, then I would discourage any couple in which, for any reason, at least one is infertile (no chance of having children), or the couple has no intention from having children. Sure, couples can change their mind. And if and when they do, at that point, they can then get married.

But again, I don’t advocate these measures, as I believe there is more than the purpose of procreation for marriage. And for the same reasons we do encourage heterosexual committed couples to marry, even if they cannot or will not have children, IMO, we should do the same for same sex couples.

Now I challenge you to answer my question again: How do we encourage nuclear families if people like you keep insisting that we cant have an institution to encourage nuclear families?

I’m not insisting anything. I guess we disagree that marrying same sex couples and having an institution to encourage nuclear families are mutually exclusive. I don’t believe that when we see a couple in their 80s get married, that that somehow means we don’t have an institution to encourage nuclear families. Same for same sex couples.

You apparently believe that if same sex couples do get married, that we no longer have an institution to encourage a nuclear family. If that’s your premise, then I or anyone else can answer your question. I believe that this premise is incorrect.

Where the hell does some straight guy get off on talking about homophobic bigotry any way.

Heliotrope,
Are you a guy? I had always assumed that because heliotrope is a flower that you were a girl. (There’s my old-fashioned, sexist, gender bias showing)

In short, when gays and lesbians can’t meet the rules and demands of marriage, they denigrate them, insist they’re not important, and demand that they be thrown out.

Marriage used to be merely a business contract. Love has come into the equation only recently.

I have never demanded that they be thrown out, especially not monogamy.

Saying that child-rearing is not the only goal of marriage is not the same as saying that child-rearing is not a goal of marriage.

Correction, Attmay; it is because they are ALWAYS physically unable to make babies, without exception.

And hence the cheapening process begins.

Marriage used to be about protecting children and their rights and needs; now, since gays and lesbians can’t produce children, they insist that’s not important.

Marriage used to be about monogamy; now, since gays and lesbians don’t want to give up promiscuity, they insist that’s not important.

Marriage used to be about perpetuating society through children; now, since gays and lesbians can’t, they insist that’s not important.

In short, when gays and lesbians can’t meet the rules and demands of marriage, they denigrate them, insist they’re not important, and demand that they be thrown out.

THAT is what cheapens marriage.

As AE brilliantly put it:

I wanted to say though, the reason no one is able to answer the question I posed is because the very root of this entire argument is that gays dont want an institution that encourages the nuclear family, they want an institution that tells them, dishonestly, that gay relationships are just as important and valuable to society as heterosexual realtionships.