Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

[marcello]

assemblage - Ok, so you are against gay marriage because you are against redefining the term marriage? Am I understanding you right? If that is what you are saying, then do you support civil unions for gay couples that have nothing to do with marriage or religion, or are you against that too? And if so why?

Edit: Please double space your reply, limit it to 500 words, and give proper credit where it is due 🙂

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: marcello
One question: in your scenario, if a couple gets married they'd receive no government benefits, right? But if they get a civil union, then they'd get benefits.

If so, then I agree completely.

Yep that is my dream scenario. All government benefits come only with a civil union and not with a marriage. No more signing legal marriage certificate at your wedding, instead you sign a legal civil union certificate.

This plan addresses half or even more than half of the complaints listed in the original post. Civil unions won't invalidate your religion. Marriage would be saved as a purely religious union - free of gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or whatever your particular religion is against. Marriage will be defined as it is. Civil unions give a clear reason why gays would want to have it. Having or not having kids will have nothing to do with civil unions. There will be a distinction between straight marriages and civil unions (which may be straight or gay).

Perfect answer, case closed.

 

[assemblage]

skace

""Gays are immoral and deviant, I do not want the government to acknowledge or validate their lifestyle"
Circle logic. Plain and simple. You just said, I do not want society to accept gays because society does not accept gays. "

It's not circular logic. Redefining marriage to include same sex partners legitimicizes gay marriage. Currently the only way marriages will be redefined this way is through the court systems. If it happens this way, the courts are saying that it's legitimate even though most people find it deviant. Society won't be accepting gay unions, it will be forced on them by the bench.

skace it seems your goal is to gather people's views on the issue and then post how they are wrong.

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: marcello
One question: in your scenario, if a couple gets married they'd receive no government benefits, right? But if they get a civil union, then they'd get benefits.

If so, then I agree completely.

Yep that is my dream scenario. All government benefits come only with a civil union and not with a marriage. No more signing legal marriage certificate at your wedding, instead you sign a legal civil union certificate.

This plan addresses half or even more than half of the complaints listed in the original post. Civil unions won't invalidate your religion. Marriage would be saved as a purely religious union - free of gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or whatever your particular religion is against. Marriage will be defined as it is. Civil unions give a clear reason why gays would want to have it. Having or not having kids will have nothing to do with civil unions. There will be a distinction between straight marriages and civil unions (which may be straight or gay).

Sounds great on the surface, but semantically there would be problems. For one there needs to be a simpler term than "civil union"... it just doesn't roll of the tongue ("honey, will you civil union me?") and it's wholly unromantic--sounds like a business deal. In our emotionally-driven society, things like that are important.

What you would find is the "kleenex" phenomenon (very few people call them tissues even if they aren't Kleenex brand). Everyone would end up using the word marriage regardless, simply because it has been a societal construct in the west for centuries. A lot of atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, hindus, etc. would be loathe to give up the term marriage without a fight. Changes in the lexicon of a society can't be forced artificially.

I highly doubt anyone who got married would opt out of the civil union part (unless they wanted to file taxes as individuals for some reason), so it's redundant.

Let's face it, marriage is a civil matter, whether its genesis is religiously-based or not. It may sometimes rely on religious ritual or traditions (in some but not all cases), but when it comes down to it, it is the act of marriage itself (as opposed to the word or ritual) that is important. Ultimately, I don't think it has been proven with any assuredness that marriage is solely a religious concept. If it were, it would have been abolished in this country long ago due to the establishment clause.

l2c

P.S. I say all of this as a Christian person, if that makes any difference.

 

[OrByte]

I hope to teach my children to accept people like assemblage and realize that he is entitled to think the way he wants, to believe in what he wants, TO LOVE THE PERSON he wants to, and to believe in what he wants to. These are Christian ideals of tolerance and acceptance...something JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF TAUGHT TO HIS PEOPLE OF HIS TIME...something CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE AWARE OF. people like assemblage and I will never see eye-to-eye.....oh well

P.S. I say all of this as a Christian person, if that makes any difference. 😛


PSA- I am not saying christians are the only one to practice tolerance and acceptance....so does, islam, muslim, etc etc etc so dont go there.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: luv2chill
Sounds great on the surface, but semantically there would be problems. For one there needs to be a simpler term than "civil union"... it just doesn't roll of the tongue ("honey, will you civil union me?") and it's wholly unromantic--sounds like a business deal. In our emotionally-driven society, things like that are important.

Yes civil union has a bad sound and a bad stigma already. There should be a better term. But that doesn't make any of my points less valid. I agree that people will call themselves married when they aren't but that doesn't cause any significant problems. People use different legal terminology all the time and we still get along just fine.

I highly doubt anyone who got married would opt out of the civil union part (unless they wanted to file taxes as individuals for some reason), so it's redundant.

It isn't redundant for people unwilling or unable to get married in a church. Yes it is redundant for straight people. But it is already redundant. You can be religiously married, but then you still have to sign and file a legal marriage certificate. You already do both - so the redundancy is already there. What we have is redundant. And as a sign of my unusual humor, I'm purposely being redundant in this paragraph, saying things over and over and over again, and repeating myself.

Let's face it, marriage is a civil matter, whether its genesis is religiously-based or not. It may sometimes rely on religious ritual or traditions (in some but not all cases), but when it comes down to it, it is the act of marriage itself (as opposed to the word or ritual) that is important.

Which is why gays who, when it comes down to it, are already married. Living together, sharing a comittment, etc. They are already doing the important acts that legally married people do.

P.S. I say all of this as a Cathlolic church married and legally married (and very straight) athiest, if that makes any difference.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: marcello
One question: in your scenario, if a couple gets married they'd receive no government benefits, right? But if they get a civil union, then they'd get benefits.

If so, then I agree completely.

Yep that is my dream scenario. All government benefits come only with a civil union and not with a marriage. No more signing legal marriage certificate at your wedding, instead you sign a legal civil union certificate.

This plan addresses half or even more than half of the complaints listed in the original post. Civil unions won't invalidate your religion. Marriage would be saved as a purely religious union - free of gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or whatever your particular religion is against. Marriage will be defined as it is. Civil unions give a clear reason why gays would want to have it. Having or not having kids will have nothing to do with civil unions. There will be a distinction between straight marriages and civil unions (which may be straight or gay).

That won't be the answer. Marriage as it is gives legal certain benefits and authority to couples to raise families. This civil union you've proposed would have those same powers. Those in opposition to homosexual marriage want to limit the scope of what is considered a "proper" family (for lack of a better word). Homosexuality is such a radically different way of "approaching" sex that common sense would say that a family based on a homosexual relationship would necessarily be different (worse).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
That won't be the answer. Marriage as it is gives ... authority to couples to raise families.

I don't understand you fully, could you clarify your points? You certainly don't need to be married to have a family. Look at all the single parents as examples. Gay people have children all the time - there is nothing preventing them. If you want a baby, they are easy to come by whether you are straight or gay. Thus you don't need an authority to have a family.

The only real question that I see left unanswered in my post is adoption. But there may be other issues I don't see yet.

 

[Alistar7]

Ive had enough of those ducks demanding special rights and their fraudulent acts, EXTEND THE DUCK SEASON.....

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dullard
Yep that is my dream scenario. All government benefits come only with a civil union and not with a marriage. No more signing legal marriage certificate at your wedding, instead you sign a legal civil union certificate.

This plan addresses half or even more than half of the complaints listed in the original post. Civil unions won't invalidate your religion. Marriage would be saved as a purely religious union - free of gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or whatever your particular religion is against. Marriage will be defined as it is. Civil unions give a clear reason why gays would want to have it. Having or not having kids will have nothing to do with civil unions. There will be a distinction between straight marriages and civil unions (which may be straight or gay).

Ok since the plan is all fleshed out, how do we get it rolling? 🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

Civil union is fine for gays that want a civil union but marriage should be allowed for gays seeking marriage as long as the church they wish to marry and commit before God is is willing to marry them. A law preserving a religious entitlement to one group and denying it to another is a violation of freedom of religion. It is a case of religious bigots trying to legalizee their brand of religion.

 

[luv2chill]

Thanks for the civil post, dullard. I do agree with you in theory... that's how things would be done on the planet Vulcan (or an earth utopia), but I fear it is too much to ask of humans in our present state of mediocrity. 🙂

Originally posted by: dullard
Which is why gays who, when it comes down to it, are already married. Living together, sharing a comittment, etc. They are already doing the important acts that legally married people do.

Yes, I agree... when it comes down to it, gays are married in every sense of the word except for those pesky legal rights and the government's recognition of their union and covenant with each other. Add in those two things and I think you'd find that gay people would be happy. Of course I could be wrong 🙂

l2c

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: assemblage
skace

""Gays are immoral and deviant, I do not want the government to acknowledge or validate their lifestyle"
Circle logic. Plain and simple. You just said, I do not want society to accept gays because society does not accept gays. "

It's not circular logic. Redefining marriage to include same sex partners legitimicizes gay marriage. Currently the only way marriages will be redefined this way is through the court systems. If it happens this way, the courts are saying that it's legitimate even though most people find it deviant. Society won't be accepting gay unions, it will be forced on them by the bench.

skace it seems your goal is to gather people's views on the issue and then post how they are wrong.

Ok, I am going to try and explain this without going on too much of a tangent. I am listing reasons for being against gay marriages, not issues that may occur if it were to be put into affect while everyone was currently against it. The quote you quoted was verbatim from Genesys as reason for voting against gay marriages, and if you read it and look up the word "deviant" you will realize it is circle logic.

The scenario you provided afterwards is something that would occur if the government legitimized gay marriages while popular vote was against it.

Is this clear? And yes, my goal is to gather views and figure out if they are valid or not. I am of the understanding that a few valid views will be collected and understood. This whole thread was mainly an experiment. Obviously, not all views presented to me are valid. Perhaps valid isn't the right word, they are valid to the person who utilized them, I am simply analyzing them logically and figuring out whether they have substance to them or not. On top of that, most of my responses answer actual questions that were posed in some sort of manner to justify a vote against gay marriages. If I can answer these questions well enough and in the thread topic, I feel that they can avoid being asked in the future. Such questions as "what reason does a homosexual person have for getting married?". The reasons exist, I do not see why this question gets continually asked, was my answer not good enough? I'm not sure.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Civil union is fine for gays that want a civil union but marriage should be allowed for gays seeking marriage as long as the church they wish to marry and commit before God is is willing to marry them. A law preserving a religious entitlement to one group and denying it to another is a violation of freedom of religion. It is a case of religious bigots trying to legalizee their brand of religion.

I don't want to put words into dullard's mouth, but I think the civil union scenario would be in place of a gay marriage ban and not alongside it. Basically, marriages would be left completely up to the respective religions. If your church allows a gay marriage at that point, go attack your religious figurehead.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: skace
I don't want to put words into dullard's mouth, but I think the civil union scenario would be in place of a gay marriage ban and not alongside it. Basically, marriages would be left completely up to the respective religions. If your church allows a gay marriage at that point, go attack your religious figurehead.

Yes those would be the words I would use.

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: skace
I don't want to put words into dullard's mouth, but I think the civil union scenario would be in place of a gay marriage ban and not alongside it. Basically, marriages would be left completely up to the respective religions. If your church allows a gay marriage at that point, go attack your religious figurehead.

Yes those would be the words I would use.

Awesome!!! I somehow doubt fundamentalists would agree but I wish they would simply because religion would get a lot more interesting! 🙂

l2c

 

[totalcommand]

The strongest non-religious argument against homosexuality I think was addressed in this thread I made a couple months ago: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...45&highlight_key=y

Skace, this is one of the strongest arguments against gay marriage, so it would be great if you could address this one.

Basically, the argument against gay marriage is that the same logic that is used for the legalization of gay marriage can also be used for the legalization of polygamy and incest.

Here's an excerpt of what I wrote in the thread:

What you missed is that many conservatives believe that gay marriage should not be legalized because it would be approving of it by doing so. They believe that if you legalize gay marriage, the next thing would be polygamy, and other "deviant" lifestyles. i.e. the slippery slope argument, which is logically invalid. I'm just saying that there is some truth in that argument - the same reasoning that is used to justify legalizing gay marriage can be used to justify legalizing polygamy. So how can it be possible to be for gay marrige and against polygamy.

My only answer is to say that polygamy is harmful to society as a whole (not just to the individual), while gay marriage isn't harmful to society as a whole. But, then it is very understandable that someone could see gay marriage as harmful to society. So I think what it comes down to is what each person's idea of the norm for society is.

For some people, this norm is determined by religion; for others this norm is determined by personal experience, so it's hard to argue one way or other. I think what the debate over norms comes down to is whether one single religion is able/should be able to determine society's norms. For me, the answer is no, and gay marriage should be legalized, while polygamy should not be.

I would argue that incestuous, polygamamous, and homosexual marriage each need to be argued separately to avoid the slippery slope. The differences you will find in arguing for each of these is in the harm you think they would do to society. How do we determine what we think harms society (regardless of whether it actually does)?

Simply by social norms. Clearly, this issue is not as simple as you and a lot of other people think it is.

You can argue that homosexuality will not harm society, but by doing so you're just injecting your view of what is normal into the argument.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
That won't be the answer. Marriage as it is gives ... authority to couples to raise families.

I don't understand you fully, could you clarify your points? You certainly don't need to be married to have a family. Look at all the single parents as examples. Gay people have children all the time - there is nothing preventing them. If you want a baby, they are easy to come by whether you are straight or gay. Thus you don't need an authority to have a family.

The only real question that I see left unanswered in my post is adoption. But there may be other issues I don't see yet.

I'm sure adoption, taxes, benefits and recognition given by private enterprises, and custody issues would probably all be affected.

 

[skace]

"Gay marriages open the door to polygamy and incest"
These 2 must be discussed somewhat seperately. The problem with relating gay marriages to polygamy is that polygamy is an entirely different beast. You are significantly modifying the marriage process and how it affects things. You now have to have special divorce scenarios and laws to create an atmosphere that works for polygamy. I do not think gay marriage leads to polygamy though the opposite might have been true (bisexual polygamy most likely would have lead to homosexual marriages). All things considered, dealing with homosexual marriages is nothing like dealing with polygamy and any problems that may or may not result from it. Homosexual marriages fits into the current system with no changes.

Incest is a whole nother problem. Well, incest itself isn't the problem really, inbreeding is. By and large they are seperate, but there is no real way to seperate them without spying on your neighbor. Sure brother and sister could enter some sort of incestial marriage, but who moderates whether they have unprotected sex and produce a genetically defficient child. Again, in this scenario if you added an additional issue that is possibly bigger than this entire thread.

Does gay marriage get people talking about these other issues? Sure. Does it somehow automatically legitimize these other issues? Not even close. I think the major understanding to come out of this is that, unlike the other 2 scenarios you brought up, homosexual marriages does not change anything in the current system. If it were to go into affect tomorrow, it would not require any further thought or reworking. And it does not have any massive impact on society that homosexuals are not already causing. You have to understand, unlike incest and polygamy, homosexually is currently existing, they simply want the right to comit to 1 partner like any other consenting adults.

The better question is, did I answer the this in any way acceptable to you?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
I'm sure adoption, taxes, benefits and recognition given by private enterprises, and custody issues would probably all be affected.

Yes that is the whole reason gays want marriage. To have the tax laws that can come with marriage, to have the right to buy insurance for their significant others (recognition by private enterprises), and the right to have custody for their children they already have. If you throw all of those out, there is no reason for them to argue for gay marriage. But what does all this have to do with your proper family post? I just am missing the link.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
I'm sure adoption, taxes, benefits and recognition given by private enterprises, and custody issues would probably all be affected.

Lets roll with this then. What needs to be sorted out? First, what are the problems with each of these and then lets work on addressing them.

1. Adoption. What is the problem? Homosexuals currently adopt.
2. Taxes. The discussion would be whether the current system can support homosexuals? Who can answer this.
2. Benefits being recognized by Private Enterprises. I'd rather someone more intelligent answered this one than me. Personally I'd rather the enterprise simply honor the civil union regardless of who the participants are in it. But perhaps Amused would disagree with me in that it would be the right of the enterprise to choose what they can or cannot honor. I am not sure. Either way that would not stop the civil union from occuring, only give enterprises more choices and homosexuals the ability to react based on those choices.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello
assemblage - Ok, so you are against gay marriage because you are against redefining the term marriage? Am I understanding you right? If that is what you are saying, then do you support civil unions for gay couples that have nothing to do with marriage or religion, or are you against that too? And if so why?

Edit: Please double space your reply, limit it to 500 words, and give proper credit where it is due 🙂

I have trouble answering this because I don't know what a civil union entails. With the consistent arguments of equal rights and ending discrimination, I don?t see that a civil union is anything but marriage for homosexual couples. If it's marriage with a different name, then no, I'm not for it for the reasons I?ve stated already.

The concept of two people devoting their life to the help and betterment of each other is by itself something beneficial. However, homosexual couples already have the ability to make those promises to each other. What exactly do homosexual couples want with civil unions?

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: skace
"Gay marriages open the door to polygamy and incest"
These 2 must be discussed somewhat seperately. The problem with relating gay marriages to polygamy is that polygamy is an entirely different beast. You are significantly modifying the marriage process and how it affects things. You now have to have special divorce scenarios and laws to create an atmosphere that works for polygamy. I do not think gay marriage leads to polygamy though the opposite might have been true (bisexual polygamy most likely would have lead to homosexual marriages). All things considered, dealing with homosexual marriages is nothing like dealing with polygamy and any problems that may or may not result from it. Homosexual marriages fits into the current system with no changes.

Incest is a whole nother problem. Well, incest itself isn't the problem really, inbreeding is. By and large they are seperate, but there is no real way to seperate them without spying on your neighbor. Sure brother and sister could enter some sort of incestial marriage, but who moderates whether they have unprotected sex and produce a genetically defficient child. Again, in this scenario if you added an additional issue that is possibly bigger than this entire thread.

Does gay marriage get people talking about these other issues? Sure. Does it somehow automatically legitimize these other issues? Not even close. I think the major understanding to come out of this is that, unlike the other 2 scenarios you brought up, homosexual marriages does not change anything in the current system. If it were to go into affect tomorrow, it would not require any further thought or reworking. And it does not have any massive impact on society that homosexuals are not already causing. You have to understand, unlike incest and polygamy, homosexually is currently existing, they simply want the right to comit to 1 partner like any other consenting adults.

The better question is, did I answer the this in any way acceptable to you?

Homosexual marriage does legitimize polygamy and incest when the argument is about discrimination. The pro-homosexual marriage argument that I usualy hear is that it's discrimination to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexuals that want marriage say, that's not fair. You're discriminating against me because I'm not marrying the opposite sex. I don't think so, but say it's so.

Say it is discrimination to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman. So if marriage isn't just between a man and a woman than who is it between. If homosexual coples are included and only them and heterosexual couples then it's male/female, male/male and female/female. That's defined just as strictly as saying marriage is only male/female and also discriminatory. Does it have to just be couples then. If so then it's just as discriminatory as male/female marriages. That means that group marriages have to be allowed to avoid discrimination. But does sex have to be involved. To say that sex has to be involved also strictly defines marriage which is discriminatory. I should then be able to marry my fraternity brother. I should be able to marry my brother or aunt too because saying that I can't marry family members would also be discrimination. That's not even talking about sex though. But why not? As a man, if it's ok to have sex with another man, then why is it wrong to sex with my brother or aunt? To say it's wrong is discrimination.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: skace
"Gay marriages open the door to polygamy and incest"
These 2 must be discussed somewhat seperately. The problem with relating gay marriages to polygamy is that polygamy is an entirely different beast. You are significantly modifying the marriage process and how it affects things. You now have to have special divorce scenarios and laws to create an atmosphere that works for polygamy. I do not think gay marriage leads to polygamy though the opposite might have been true (bisexual polygamy most likely would have lead to homosexual marriages). All things considered, dealing with homosexual marriages is nothing like dealing with polygamy and any problems that may or may not result from it. Homosexual marriages fits into the current system with no changes.

Incest is a whole nother problem. Well, incest itself isn't the problem really, inbreeding is. By and large they are seperate, but there is no real way to seperate them without spying on your neighbor. Sure brother and sister could enter some sort of incestial marriage, but who moderates whether they have unprotected sex and produce a genetically defficient child. Again, in this scenario if you added an additional issue that is possibly bigger than this entire thread.

Does gay marriage get people talking about these other issues? Sure. Does it somehow automatically legitimize these other issues? Not even close. I think the major understanding to come out of this is that, unlike the other 2 scenarios you brought up, homosexual marriages does not change anything in the current system. If it were to go into affect tomorrow, it would not require any further thought or reworking. And it does not have any massive impact on society that homosexuals are not already causing. You have to understand, unlike incest and polygamy, homosexually is currently existing, they simply want the right to comit to 1 partner like any other consenting adults.

The better question is, did I answer the this in any way acceptable to you?

Homosexual marriage does legitimize polygamy and incest when the argument is about discrimination. The pro-homosexual marriage argument that I usualy hear is that it's discrimination to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexuals that want marriage say, that's not fair. You're discriminating against me because I'm not marrying the opposite sex. I don't think so, but say it's so.

Say it is discrimination to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman. So if marriage isn't just between a man and a woman than who is it between. If homosexual coples are included and only them and heterosexual couples then it's male/female, male/male and female/female. That's defined just as strictly as saying marriage is only male/female and also discriminatory. Does it have to just be couples then. If so then it's just as discriminatory as male/female marriages. That means that group marriages have to be allowed to avoid discrimination. But does sex have to be involved. To say that sex has to be involved also strictly defines marriage which is discriminatory. I should then be able to marry my fraternity brother. I should be able to marry my brother or aunt too because saying that I can't marry family members would also be discrimination. That's not even talking about sex though. But why not? As a man, if it's ok to have sex with another man, then why is it wrong to sex with my brother or aunt? To say it's wrong is discrimination.

I want to marry my clone I want to marry my sister's clone, I want to marry a duck. I get all these absurd notions because I am a bigot and want to distract you from a real issue. Look at all the real live millions of people who are duck lovers and clone lovers all over the country in families everywhere who have for centuries suffered form duck and clone discrimination. It is just horrible and outrageous that these long suffering souls also have to be lumped in with the gay issue. I mean forget about gays. There are only three of them. Think practically and intelligently like a good bigot about ducks and clones. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not being able to add up two and two and see how much more injustice there is in the world when you don't allow duck lovers some piece in the bedroom. Please oh please for the name of good bigots everywhere deal with the important issues and forget about the millions of gays God made gay so we could torture. He made them so they could abstain from sex and sin while we dream of our ducks and clones. God is great, the biggest and best of bigots. Try to think like Christians you fools.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Skace:
ware is the update for my first post?

What does denying the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law actually deny?

The right of our common moral foundations to be expressed in our law. We can encompass the values of others in a way that doesn?t overtly attack the definition of those foundations.

Your argument is based on nothing but the premise that being gay is evil and your opinion as to the correctness of that comes from nowhere but your religious brainwashing.

no, and I don?t really know what God thinks of others that proclaim the Lord?s name but have homosexual sex:
That?s between them and God.

But for my own I know it?d be wrong.

I believe my point of view is the general consensus amongst heterosexuals.

If anyone is being discriminated against it?s the population who wants to quietly live there private lives and let others live there private lives, but are being forced to not only acknowledge but accept what many of us feel is a lack of a key sexual-morality value.

you have a right to, but why do you want to? Do you want to?

We already have expressed our common value system in the form of legal marriage as it is now.

Value?s are guard rails that we live with not because it?s legally required, but because it seems to us to be the most reasonable way to live our lives. We don?t want to force others not to make mistakes in life, or even to agree with the values we have, but we don?t want to be forced to pretend like those that lack some of our key values should be able to change our social definition of our own values.

?I don?t like XYZ, they?re welcome to do what they want in the privacy of there own homes, but when they try to force it on you in the public square it becomes repugnant?

Is that statement bigoted? If it is then we?re all bigots when it comes to passively tolerating those with whom we deeply disagree with.

Homosexual marriage does legitimize polygamy and incest when the argument is about discrimination.

very true. If adults have a right to have there legal sexual activity recognized as marriage in law then you should be able to marry both your aunt and your brother.

Then, it order to preserve the "covenant of marriage", we must outlaw divorce too.

no, not necessarily. Though no-fault divorce is a problem in society.

Do you want to?

personally? I?d like to see marriage taken away from the government and anyone with no regard to sexual activity able to create a communal property contract.

Where do you think this is going to get you? A place in heaven?

allowing those that want to preserve the legal expression of the covenant of marriage in its original form is necessary not establishing a dangerous precedent in regards to both ?discrimination? and the right of the people not the judges to establish what laws they want to live under.

I hold that I am a moral person with values. They don't agree in all places with Christian teachings, however that makes mine no better or worse than any other.

And we can disagree on what values we?ll live by, but if your values come in direct conflict with the majority, the majority wins. Even if it?s on wealth-redistribution, what sexual activity we as a society condone, what substances are to be freely available, or what weaponry should be available to the populous.