If a couple wants the term “marriage” to apply to their union, then if they wish they can have it blessed by whatever religion they associate themselves with.

It would certainly make all the arguments and fighting go away.

I have never understand why civil unions are not offered to str8 couples…why discriminiate against them? (You can say either civil unions or domestic partnerships) whatever term floats your boat.

To me, it is the statutory rights that are at issue and it would take the fight out of the fight over marriage if Gay AND str8 couples were offered the same rights under what would be civil unions/domestic partnerships.

If there was a need for “marriage” based upon one’s religion, then one could apply to get that “marriage” certificate. At least with civil unions/domestic partnerships (whatever term one wants to use) with the same statutory rights for everyone, it solves the issue.

If a church didn’t want to “marry” a Gay couple, it wouldn’t matter since the Gay couple would have the same statutory rights as a str8 civil union couple.

It is so inane that our community doesn’t present that common sense solution and take the fight out of the issue by presenting common sense statutory solutions.

Now as to the issue at hand, shock of shocks Nobama panders to evangelicals, no less one who agrees with him…I mean do the Lefitst Nobama Marxists (I know, I am being redundant) really think Nobama is with them on any Gay issues…..self delusion..ain’t it grand?!! Gimme a break…..there will be a lot more throwing us under the bus and repeatedly running us over….if we didn’t learn our lesson with the Clintons, then we won’t learn it with this crowd either.

Yet Nobama will get lots and lots of money and support from the GLBT community….let’s hope that the American electorate has the Audacity to throw the bums out in 2012 (and start in 2010 with throwing Nancy and Harry to the curb along with their leftist pals)

Which is a characteristic of all, or most same sex couples?

“same-sex couples do not model to children the balance of the sexes”

certainly a point that can’t be argued against

” the give-and-take, the mutual support that models stable heterosexual marriage.”

How are “give-and-take” or “mutual support” gender specific? They are the mark of any stable couple, hetero, homo or asexual. The two-parent heterosexual model of a family likely is the ideal, I won’t argue one way or the other but I don’t think it’s correct to say that a same-sex couple can’t model the values that children need to grow up with and take to their future relationships.

I’m a bad liberal though because I think that civil-unions or domestic partnerships when configured correctly are just fine. My displeasure with Warren being included in the festivities has nothing to do with his views on marriage, it’s his opinions of us as human beings which to me disqualify him

V the K, maybe we agree more than disagree. I would just add that adding same sex couples would not radically change the meaning and nature of the institution, in my view. I agree that couples with children should be entitled to a higher level of privilege. But I would say that applies to same sex couples as well.

Infertile and childless couples are collateral to the argument. They can be accommodated without radically changing the meaning and nature of the institution. But I think couples with children should be entitled to a higher level of privilege than childless couples.

The point that I also made is that while marriage is certainly important and provides a good stable environment for children, we have extended the definition of marriage to include couples who are infertile and/or choose to not have children.

Now I understand if you rather keep things neat and simple, and would not want to change any requirement about insisting married couples procreate, or testing if both are fertile, I understand that. But my question is how do you feel about opposite sex couples that cannot or will not have children? Do you believe they shouldn’t marry? Do you believe that we should not encourage such couples to marry?

Furthermore, heterosexual relationships are what 96% of children will aspire to.

True. And maybe this doesn’t seem important, but I’m also concerned about the other 4%. We should have a model for them. I know, not the depravity and promiscuity. And I realize that one doesn’t need marriage to be monogamous. But models help, as you suggest with heterosexual relationships.

So, in my view, traditional heterosexual marriage is the one arrangement to be valued above all others, but that still leaves room for domestic partnerships and other alternative arrangement.

Fair enough. I understand your position.

As a single parent, I’ve come to realize that the two parent, heterosexual model is invaluable because parents model relationships for children to follow. The continuation of these structures strengthens and maintains society. Furthermore, heterosexual relationships are what 96% of children will aspire to.

Gay marriage does not offer that. The sexes are different. Notwithstanding promiscuity and depravity, same-sex couples do not model to children the balance of the sexes, the give-and-take, the mutual support that models stable heterosexual marriage.

So, in my view, traditional heterosexual marriage is the one arrangement to be valued above all others, but that still leaves room for domestic partnerships and other alternative arrangement.

V the K, take away “heterosexual” above, and that is my position.

But, if you take the position that other arrangements need to be recognized for some other reason, then to be intellectually consistent, you have to allow relationships that can be justified by those other reasons.

That would be intellectually consistent. But the reasons I have for supporting same sex marriage do not apply to polygamy. So I’m not sure where I’m being inconsistent.

You can’t just decide some arrangements should be privileged and others shouldn’t be strictly on the basis that you find them icky.

That seems to be the main justification against same sex marriage from what I see. So I agree with you. And I don’t believe that was the basis of why I believe same sex marriage should be allowed and polygamy shouldn’t. Again, if it’s the way I’m articulating my argument, I apologize. And again, I’ll defer to ILC, who has articulated IMO a consistent rationale (and one I agree with) of why same sex marriage should be allowed and polygamy shouldn’t.

But, if you take the position that other arrangements need to be recognized for some other reason, then to be intellectually consistent, you have to allow relationships that can be justified by those other reasons. You can’t just decide some arrangements should be privileged and others shouldn’t be strictly on the basis that you find them icky.

*The statement above should not be construed to equating banning of same sex marriage with slavery. My point was about institutions and how they change in time.

V the K, I think I do get it, and I think I understand your position. I just don’t agree with it, and I probably am not doing a good job in articulating it. ILC, IMO, has done a much better job articulating his rationale, and I pretty much agree with what he has said.

What grounds do you have to deny people the right to polygamous marriage? Because it personally offends you? People are personally offended by gay marriage, too.

V the K, what grounds do you have to deny same sex marriage? The thing is, traditional marriage has changed quite a bit in the past 2000+ years. I’m not just talking about divorce being easier, which can be debated as to whether that’s a good thing or not. In Western culture, at least, we’ve eliminated polygamy as part of traditional marriage. We don’t view marriage as simply a property deal, or the wife considered as the husband’s property. We don’t tolerate men slapping around their wives anymore as something that’s okay. We don’t restrict marriage within races anymore either.

So now the question is should the tradition of marriage be changed once again. Since I believe that monogamous gay relationships should be valued, and are beneficial to society, it would be beneficial for the couple and for society to extend marriage in this situation. You are correct that others do find homosexuality offensive, and that such relationships shouldn’t be recognized as a marriage. So there’s an obvious difference of opinion. Time will tell which opinion will ultimately prevail. If it’s not mine, then same sex marriage won’t happen. So be it.

Since I don’t believe that multiple partnerships are beneficial to society, they should not be recognized as marriage. If people believe otherwise, let them make the case why such relationships should be valued and would benefit society.

That would seem to imply that social institutions can be defined by societal consensus. However, if you really believed that, you would not be pushing for gay marriage, which goes against a broad societal consensus.

Maybe this is the part I’m not getting. It seems to me that social institutions are defined by social consensus. But like most things, it’s not unanimous. So right now, the consensus is no same sex marriage. That doesn’t mean that that consensus is right. It used to be the consensus that slavery was okay.* Then times change and better ideas prevail.

So what should I do? Say that since the consensus is against same sex marriage, say, “okay, I won’t bother having my own opinion and rationale.” Instead I do believe my rationale is correct. And I believe that the rationale that many use against same sex marriage is incorrect. Many more people are coming to believe that as well. Time will tell if that will become the consensus or not.

What grounds do you have to deny people the right to polygamous marriage? Because it personally offends you? People are personally offended by gay marriage, too.

Do you think plural marriage will weaken the traditional model of a committed union of two people? See previous argument.

You just can’t go around saying “gender doesn’t matter, but numbers do,” because there’s no argument against polygamy that can not be made against gay marriage… ditto adult incestuous relationships.

When you say, “I don’t believe that a homosexual relationship in and of itself is bad, but I do think that incest, multiple partners at the same time, bestiality, etc., are bad,” you seem to be suggesting that simply defining something as “bad” is enough. That would seem to imply that social institutions can be defined by societal consensus. However, if you really believed that, you would not be pushing for gay marriage, which goes against a broad societal consensus.

NDT, I have no idea who are the constitutional experts that I have in place. I’ve stated and made the case before, and in this thread, that plural marriage should not be legalized.

You have no grounds to deny plural marriage.

The hell I don’t.

You and your fellow gay liberals

NDT, my arguments are different from what you perceive as gay liberals, because for instance, I OPPOSE polygamy, whereas you perceive gay liberals to support polygamy.

So if you see a flaw in my argument, then stick to MY argument. Not the argument of “fellow gay liberals.”

Further, as I’ve also stated, some conservatives on this site also support same sex marriage and oppose polygamy. So if you want to lump me with others, maybe you should say “you are your fellow gay conservatives…”

abolished the right of government to regulate marriage, and made of marriage a “fundamental civil right” that cannot be denied to anyone and must be awarded on the basis of “love”.

I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about. I’ve made my opinion on who I believed should have the privilege of marriage. We disagree on two counts. 1) You oppose same sex marriage. 2) I opposed marriage in which one or both are children in ALL cases, while you support marriage in some cases (if I’m wrong about this, I apologize, and I’ll stand corrected). What I also understand is that same sex marriage has to go through governmental process. The legislature or the people is preferable. But there is also a judicial process as well, whether or not we feel that they interpret the respective constitutions correctly.

You may not invoke traditional or religious values, nor may you exercise any moral judgment on the value of plural marriage whatsoever, because to do so makes you a hatemonger and a bigot who is trying to impose their moral code on others.

I’m afraid I’ve used traditional and religious values in making my moral judgment on both the issues of same sex marriage and polygamy. And despite the Bible sanctioning polygamy and opposing homosexuality, I came to the conclusions that I have.

My point is that you have lumped same sex marriage with polygamy, marriage between close family members, etc. I believe you have done so unfairly, because I don’t believe that a homosexual relationship in and of itself is bad, but I do think that incest, multiple partners at the same time, bestiality, etc., are bad. So why on Earth would I want these relationships to be sanctioned with marriage?

have abolished the right of government to regulate marriage, and made of marriage a “fundamental civil right” that cannot be denied to anyone and must be awarded on the basis of “love”.

Actually, Pat, the same constitutional experts that you have in place saying that gay marriage should be legalized also are saying that plural marriage should be legalized.

You have no grounds to deny plural marriage. You and your fellow gay liberals have abolished the right of government to regulate marriage, and made of marriage a “fundamental civil right” that cannot be denied to anyone and must be awarded on the basis of “love”. You may not invoke traditional or religious values, nor may you exercise any moral judgment on the value of plural marriage whatsoever, because to do so makes you a hatemonger and a bigot who is trying to impose their moral code on others.

I’m curious. Does anyone else subscribe to this thought?

While there are good reasons that relationships between adults and children; between adults and nonhuman animals, plants, or objects; between close relatives; and between multiple partners, are not a good idea, let alone marriage, the same is simply not true regarding homosexual relationships. At least I think we’re all on the same page with that one. No?

Roberto, I thought the same thing.

His plan is to take the evangelical vote away from the Republican Party.

Well, some of it, at least.

Your incorrect assumptions are based on your own artificial divisions – I have many times clearly stated I was speaking of fanatic practitioners of any religion – the particular creed, doctrine or deity is not the issue, what the person does with such beliefs is.

I’ve NEVER used the word homophobic on here except in a sentence telling you I’ve never used it.

I wonder is it the number of lies you use that tips you into everlasting fire or is it the inability to do anything but lie? Either way, you’re fried son.

Can you please show me where Attmay ever mentioned marriage in #65?