Ashpenaz, that may be. But most of the gay people who can’t do the one partner thing will simply not get married. Fine by me. Heck, I know some straight people that won’t get married for the same reason. Marriage is not for those people.

Yes, there will be some people who will get a civil union or married, but have an open relationship. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but is that something that should be legislated?

However, I think that gay marriage as an investment in the future makes a lot of sense, regardless of the present intentions of both groups.

Definitely in agreement here.

Well? Let’s see it buddy. Teach me if you think you’ve got something to teach.

Teaching is only half the equation. A willing learner is the other half. You sir, have no interest in learning much of anything. In that respect, my “teaching” is superfluous. I merely said that I am used to treating made up minds that spew venom in a calm, deliberate manner. To pat my own back, someone needs to set a level of decorum. When you stomp into the conversation you are like a poodle humping someone’s leg. Some choose to put a sheet over you and watch you shadow hump. Other’s try to kick you off the leg. Everyone has his own approach. Your approach, however, never varies. A consistent leg humper is like watching Pee Wee Herman: you know the act before it even begins.

Ashpenaz, I’m sure one can link examples of such bad things, and generalize it to the whole gay community. The thing is, for any cause, you’re going to have your share of idiotic nuts. We’ve seen this with those who protested the Iraqi War, and we’ve even seen this the Tea Party protests. So it’s no surprise that same sex marriage supporters has its own fringe supporters. And like the nuts from the other protests I’ve mentioned, they have their own agenda, which has little or nothing to do with same sex marriage.

(shrug) It was their choice to put gay sex ahead of the welfare of their children and their previous commitments.

(shrug) Take a lesbian who married a man when she didn’t know any better (not out to herself), then became a widow, or got dumped by her husband who was an S.O.B., etc. There are any number of honorable reasons why a marriage might break up, then the more intact or capable of the two parents ended up with the kids, and then (in due course) found a same-sex partner.

(shrug) It was their choice to put gay sex ahead of the welfare of their children and their previous commitments. Jim McGreevey is a prime example of why this argument doesn’t work.

Also, with regard to those who use assisted reproduction, reproduction is a basic human desire and America accepts assisted reproduction.

Then Octo-Mom should be demanding and receiving full marriage benefits for her choice to have eight babies without a husband.

Furthermore, ILC, there is a rather stark contradiction between the argument that procreation and childraising are not relevant to marriage and the argument that the children that gay couples get are being harmed by the lack of marriage.

But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:

“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.’”

Undermining the tradition of marriage and bashing straights.

Okay, I’ll respond, Ashpenaz. If it happens to be 0.005%, fine by me. Heck, even if all these married couples end up being open relationships, etc., it will be pretty tough to undermine marriage, right?

Actually, the thing is that most of us grew up thinking that marriage was not a possibility. In fact, I remember running into a great aunt, who I hadn’t seen in a while, at some park and we started talking about who in my immediate family was married and having children, etc. I remember responding then, “And, of course, I’m not getting married.”

When I was a child, it was just assumed that I would get married to a woman. By the time I was 18, I realized that wasn’t happening. But in a generation from now, (hopefully) marriage, or at least civil unions, will be an option for any gay person, and that gay children while growing up will see that marriage, like their straight siblings, is an option.

Does that mean the same proportion of gay persons will be married if we peek 100 years into the future? I doubt it. But I think it will be more than 0.005%. The point is, we should at least encourage our children, gay and straight, to form monogamous relationships with appropriate partners.

What percentage of that group sees lifelong, sexual exclusivity as the ideal? 1%? 2%?

Neither of us knows any exact numbers, Ash, so I’ll give my subjective opinion that it has to be a lot higher than that.

I choose 3) Neither of the above.

Actually, I’m going to try to choose and see if I get the sunglasses smiley guy like ILC did.