GeorgeW

Society was against inter-racial marriage. Was it wrong for the courts to change this? George

Joseph, So, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, but you would allow heterosexuals who cannot procreate to marry but deny it to gays even if they can through surrogacy? This seems inconsistent to me. You mention the "intentions of marriage." This begs the question, whose intentions? It also overlooks the other benefits of marriage such as economic, companionship, sex, etc. George

Joseph, Sterile heterosexual people or post-menopausal women cannot have children You would allow them to marry? (BTW, gays can procreate with a surrogate parent.) George

Joseph, This begs several questions. What do you suggest is the position in our society that a gay person should have? Should insect behavior be a model for humans? Because unfairness exists in the universe, should we as human beings, not strive to make our society more fair (recognizing we cannot achieve perfection)? George

Joseph, the issue is the legal consequences of marriage - taxation, inheritance, etc. These are very much legal issues to which equality does apply. I personally think that government should get out of the marriage business and deal with this as a civil unions for straights and gays. If one wants a separate, church sanctioned marriage, that would be a personal decision between the couple and the church. George

You are right. But, it does guarantee equality before the law. It wasn't so long ago that Whites could not marry African-Americans. But, thankfully, that is now history because of the equal rights protection of our Constitution. Gays, IMO, are not far behind. Homophobia is a losing hand. George

Dennis, I am getting really repetitive and, I know, it sounds argumentative, but I am still waiting on a rational argument against gay marriage. I don't think asserting religious values is a rational basis for banning gay marriage. George

To deny gay people the right to marry. To deny African Americans equal rights. To . . . . . George

I think that is what they try to do. But, when we scratch the logic surface, we find it is a religious or values based point of view. George

Dennis, No, what I am suggesting as that any 'values' argument used to impose one's personal values on someone else is not sufficient in and of itself. George

Joseph, Yes, we are a democracy and the majority rules however unreasonable it may be at times. But, we are also protected by the Constitution against infringements or our rights which includes issues of equality. Further, the Constitution insures religious freedom. We cannot impose our religious views on others. A church can grant or deny marriage to whomever they wish. However, they cannot impose their religious doctrines on others. George

Dennis, I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound. If someone wants to say I don't agree with gay marriage because it violates my personal religious convictions, that is fine with me. My response would be, 'Then don't marry someone of the same sex.' But, I would also say, "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.' (unless there is harm involved). I am still waiting for this rational argument against gay marriage - seriously. I am not trying to argumentative. If there is a sound argument, someone should bring it forth. George

If one claims to oppose gay marriage on the principle that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then they should also oppose marriage of sterile people on the same principle. They don't. Therefore, they are not logically taking this position based on this principle. George

What is the counterpoint? George

Okay, and I found the argument serious deficient. It is simply an assertion that gay marriage would weaken "the social expectations supporting marriage." Where is the evidence? What is the logic? George

Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason. George

I have been using the word 'rational' in the sense that the conclusion is arrived at based on logic or empirical evidence rather than emotion, prejudice or religious grounds. Certainly one could use religious premises such as the inerrancy of the Pope or the literal truth of the Bible, to arrive at conclusions. But, these would not necessarily lead to conclusions consistent with logic or empirical evidence. George

Joseph, Please state at least one point that you think is sound. I am not asking to you agree with it. If you would prefer not to say, please refer to a specific page in the article that has the sound point. My problem is I have never heard a sound, logical argument against gay marriage. George

I absolutely agree that my view does not make something rational, logical or even reasonable. But, a point-of-view and a rational, logical argument are not necessarily the same thing. I would be interested in what particular argument in the article that you find to be sound reasoning against same-sex marriage. George

Those who argue against same-sex marriage because the purpose is procreation, do not at the same time favor banning heterosexual marriage involving a sterile partner or banning the marriage of post-menopausal women. They don't advocate medical tests to prove fertility. So, the procreation argument is not "rational." I would agree that procreation and child rearing is a reason for marriage. But, there are others reasons as well; sex, companionship, economic, etc. I would not agree (and neither do they) that procreation should be a requirement. George

Joseph, I don't wish to get into a debate as well. However, I am still waiting to hear rational argument against same-sex marriage. If you or DCF could summarize one or point specifically to one in the articles, I would be most interested. There must be something that you guys found persuasive that led you to post links to the articles. George

Joseph, I looked and the article is 42 pages. I don't have the time now to read it and comment. Maybe you or DCF would like to summarize a specific rational argument against same-sex marriage from the article. George

Joseph, I glanced through the article and in spite of its title, I found no rational, non-religious argument. George

No biology textbook tells us when this fertilized egg acquires a soul or person-hood. This is the issue and it is a theological or philosophical question. George

Joseph, I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against same-sex marriage. George