commenter-thread

New Hampshire and California in the last two weeks? Yeah, its a landslide alright but not towards gay marriage. By the way, 29 states have had a public referendum on gay marriage and guess what? 29 states have disallowed gay marriage. You can write all you want in support but 3 to 4% of the population shouldn't get special rights unless we allow all small percentage groups whatever rights they want based on the fact that they exist. If polygamists are 0.5%, they should get to marry otherwise it is tyranny of the majority. Or if brothers and sisters who want to marry are 0.05%, they should get to marry or it is tyranny of the majority.

Good luck with the special rights campaign.

I now have a concrete example of absolute bashing tone of the gay marriage argument by its supporters. Ms. California vs. Perez Hilton. She stated that each state has its laws and allows for different people to marry and that was not an issue for her but she PERSONALLY stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Perez Hilton then went on to absolutely curse her out with names and obscenities on his website and call her dumb, bigoted, etc. The reaction was so out of proportion to the event.

The reason I bring this up is it was discussed on Larry King Live tonight about whether the semi-nude photo blow up of Ms. Cal is retaliation. Perez denied it is retaliation. However, he belied his answer when Larry asked him if she had supported gay marriage what the outcome would have been. Perez said she probably wouldn't have won and no one would be talking about her. His logic says since she is against gay marriage, her semi-nude photos are an issue. Its crazy and hypocritical. Gay men and women want liberal laws but want to impose conservative contract interpretation on Ms. Cal for her photos.

The pro-gay marriage movement as I have said is ALL EMOTION and way out of proportion to reality. The honest comparisons to slavery say it all - way out of proportion to reality. Gay marriage supporters have become the tyrants. I could name a few on here that fall into that category especially those who said that I didn't argue my points well. Closeminded, self-righteous superior folk as bad and as evil as the Christian Right.

I read and I read and I read these posts today. I was accused of changing arguments. However, I see so many statements that I made that were never met by anyone on here. I saw many knee-jerk reactions to what I wrote that elicited emotional arguments but not based in fact.

For instance, I wrote: "It is erroneous to read the 1st Amendment as disallowing any religious interjection into any government issue. One religion can’t be favored over any other thereby leading to an official state religion or the appearance of one. Thus, marriage laws as they are written are not unconstitutional and not problematic."

But this was never addressed. One person tried to argue against it but he was 100% wrong. My statement was based on the Founding Father's reasons for writing the 1st Amendment which is fact and not even an argument. All I got was an emotional attempt at an argument. And that is mostly what I see here - emotional reactions lacking in factual history. And that is the gay marriage fight in a nutshell. It is ALL emotional.

I will repost my argument that it is not about equality but about something more.

"I will say this again loud and clear. If it is about equal rights, which everyone says it is, then civil unions with every single damn right of marriage is in fact equal rights.

Okay? Does that make sense?

Next, if you ask for gay marriage, then there is something intangible that you are seeking, not just equal rights. If it is just rights, who the hell cares if it is civil union or marriage. You’ve got the rights. Keep moving. But to want marriage is to want equal recognition of gay relationships in relation to marriage. What is that? What “right” is that? Where in the constitution is that “right” listed? It isn’t about inheritance, it isn’t about visitation or tax issues, it is not about a right, but a need to be acknowledged. Society chooses which behavior, and it is behavior, to acknowledge. "

This is a legal issue and we have a Constitution under which we decide our laws. We don't argue based on pure emotion. But that is what gay marriage supporters are urging. It is wrong and it is offensive to our history not because people are gay but because they are demanding something outside of a process that this country has used up to this point. It screams of special rights, just to me, not to anyone else, I speak for no one else and I am not part of any conspiracy, church, GOP, etc. It is my opinion and it is informed by history as well as personal experience which I will relate later.

Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob. Oh, Bob.

Bob

You know nothing about me besides writings on this blog in particular. Nothing else. But good try on the psychological assessment. Like I said, name-calling and attempted marginalization are your ammunition. Nice way to play right into hands. Good job. Do you really think that your opinion about me means anything to me? It tells me more about you than about me. The fact that you went back and read everything to make a diagnosis - I think that you had drawn a conclusion and then went back to read in order to support your already drawn conclusion.

How do you know I am a man? that I am not a surgically altered woman? or simply a woman? or gay? or that I was gay and am not anymore? You know nothing about me except my opinion in one area. Just like gays who call people who disagree with gay marriage bigots, you are exactly the same, afraid of people with different opinions and you must demonize them to feel superior. That's what I read from you. Smugly superior.

This gay marriage debate has become the tyranny of the minority. If you disagree, you are a bigot. Gays claim that they are intractably gay and demand understanding, basically claiming the right to self-determination. Gays also claim sexuality is a continuum. Yet if someone who formerly identified himself or herself as gay no longer claims gay feelings, gay groups are all over them, saying no way, once gay, always gay. Which is it? Is sexuality on a continuum, is it self-determined or are gays the authority on all sexual issues? Seems to me that gays are terrorizing anyone who disagrees with name calling, flippancy, marginalizing, you pick the strategy. Gays say accept me for who I am but gays refuse to accept anyone who claims he or she doesn't practice homosexuality as a lifestyle even if they once had practiced it. The hypocrisy is astounding but I bet, I bet, no on here sees the hypocrisy.

The religious right is a minority yet it held the Republicans sway for many years. Now gays are doing the same to the left. The tyranny of the minority. And you have guys have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Gays as a class are in constant flux. Anyone who is a member of a race is always a member. Gays as a class is erroneous and should never be treated with anything more than rational basis review. It is not a protected class like women, ie., once a woman, always a woman, once black, always black, etc. Gays can come and go. Again, refer back to the APA and their recent statement that they have found psychological well-being with former gays and lesbians.

The tyranny of the minority, politically correct gone awry.

Dave,

It took you how many days to articulate your thoughts? I understand the ramifications. Do I agree with activist judges misapplying jurisprudence? No. Do I find their reasoning a leap? Yes. You did not refute my arguments by citing one court's decision. You merely stated the court's opinion. Homosexuals are not a protected class according to the Supreme Court. Iowa means nothing to me. I live in NY. So what if a few justices make ridiculous leaps. How does the rest of the state feel? Are we going to now apply this reasoning to sterile brothers and sisters? Polygamists? Where does it end and why does it end there? Can you tell me that one, smart guy? Or do you need a few days to find someone else's opinion that you can reprint?

Bob, you're too serious. I am pointing out the fallacy of his argument through sarcasm. Its not bad faith and it wasn't intended as such. It was a poor argument on his part and I pointed out his misstatement.

Cascadian, you limited your argument to the bedroom, not me. Don't try to turn it around on me. Make a better argument next time and you won't have to scramble to cover your ass. I pointed out your misstatement; accept that you argued poorly and move on.

Bob, you missed the boat entirely. Cascadian was saying the government should stay out of the bedroom, thus, focusing on sodomy and sexual interaction, not focusing on marriage. That was why I alluded to sodomy laws regardless of their current status. I know the Lawrence case - I went to law school. You missed the point, Bob. I think that marriage is more than what happens in the bedroom, maybe, huh? See my point. Cascadian thinks government staying out of the bedroom is the equivalent of saying okay to gay marriage. Do you see the lack of thought in that argument and my response to it? I hope so.

Back to Dave, this is too easy. Actually, its not, when I am arguing with lightweights. I have to dumb it down to make my points and that takes effort. C'mon, please rise to my level.

Dave...oh wait, nothing to say to you since you have nothing to say. Troll.

Cascadian wrote: "Everyone has the interest of keeping the government out of the bedroom. As far as religion, it’s always a case of rights for me but not for thee."

Cascadian, wow, I didn't realize that this was just about sex. I thought it was about marriage. You might want to change your fight to sodomy laws to be accurate in your arguments. Otherwise, your statement, simple, trite, not cute, not accurate, and lacking in any argument whatsoever - in other words, arguing with you is a waste of time.

Good for all of you.

Bad Yogi wrote: "under the surface of a seemingly amiable, open guy was a religious argument."

Huh? Wha? Religious argument? What are you reading? You're finding things that don't exist. I want to write more but I think that confuses you so I will keep it short and simple.

Bad Yogi, you are guilty of projection. Everything you said about me you recognize because you practice it. Your screen name is not ironic.
Stop trying to cram me into the fundamentalist section. You say I'm not engaged. ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT - OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOT ENGAGED. You're a name caller. You're angry. You are self-righteous. The bile must be backed up into the back of your throat. You don't argue-you're a name caller. That's it. You are one of the ones who shouts down opposition but has nothing to say himself. You are in the front ranks, a private, not a general. Don't fool yourself that you are more than that and you'll be a happier person.

Cascadian -Religion - look up the bill of rights. Everyone has a potential interest in the spiritual life. Religion should be protected. The same cannot be said about homosexuality.

I realized that to engage in arguing with the gay marriage movement is to give it credibility. Gays are interested in the fight and not the actual rights. Refer to Salon from February 08 regarding gay marriage in Mass. and how such a small number of gays are actually getting married.

So I ignore you and your self-righteousness. Yes, gay marriage will probably pass but gay identity will pass into oblivion. It is only 40 years old and it is due to the American Psychological Association amending its code to take homosexuality out of the pathology category. However, the same organization last year added a new caveat to its code for the first time ever. It has acknowledged that some (formerly) self-identified gay men and women have been helped out of their lifestyle, orientation, choice, whatever you want to call it and actually are living more satisfying, happier lives in hetero relationships. Self-identified is crucial since NO ONE can define anyone else as much as gay men and women want to claim a person who has one homosexual experience in their entire life as gay but in denial. (Ha! talk about self-righteousness). No one gets to claim who is gay and who isn't except that person him or herself. The APA is not full of fundamentalists. It acknowledges psychological well being and has done so not due to a political movement but real results. Do a web search and find it out yourselves.

People see demons everywhere against gays. But that's not accurate. There are not demons everywhere but gays love a fight, love a soapbox, love to rebel, love to be self-righteous and also portray themselves as victims even though they are one of the wealthiest groups in the country. So to engage in arguing is to give the gay movement the soapbox it needs. I abstain. Because we'll see, once gays get marriage, such a small amount of people will take advantage of it, it will have been a worthless fight and gays still won't be happy as a group. That lifestyle doesn't lend itself to happiness and it never will.

But we won't have to hear the self-righteousness anymore, the screeching, the nails on the chalkboard. I could pick apart every single argument above but its pointless because no one EVER acknowledges where I am right except one time one guy asked me, okay, well do you at least support civil unions, which I do. He couldn't refute my arguments like no one else can on here.

I am reposting this and I will discuss it if anyone wants to but I will not engage in any other discussion. Here is my repost: ONE SINGLE ACT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR TODAY DOES BNOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO GAY IDENTITY TOMORROW UNLIKE RACE WHERE IF ONE IS BLACK TODAY, HE OR SHE IS BLACK TOMORROW.

The point being we don't need to change laws for something fluid like sexuality unlike needing to changes laws for something that will never change like race. Sexuality is self-defined, race is not. One is subjective, one is not.

Did you read the same article that I posted? Where is your "easy" refutation exactly? Cause I can't find it.

And I guess according to your (flawed) logic, we should get rid of government regulation in ALL areas of our lives? Or should it just be the ones that you in particular don't like?

According to your argument as well, brothers and sisters who are in love should be able to marry, multiple partners should be able to marry, where does it end exactly? Oh, I guess with no government regulation (and its resulting anarchy), anything goes. Interesting argument. Great refutation. Really... great.

The secular case against gay marriage: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Please read it and refute. To fine tune my earlier argument, yes, homosexual behavior exists in animals albeit on a minimal level. However, gay identity only exists in humans as a relatively new phenomenon. Before anyone says "yes, but a heterosexual identity doesn't exist in the animal world either", well, the only reason a hetero identity exists in humans is to counterpose the new self-identified homosexuals. If homosexuality as an identity didn't exist, heterosexuality is the norm and doesn't need to have a category or an identifying label. Its simple logic.

There have also been societies that haven't frowned upon homosexuality in history, ie, greeks, indian tribes, yet have not embraced gay marriage. So, what this means is that there has not been bigotry since homosexual activity was condoned. Greeks recognized it happens and accepted it but did not promote it via marriage since sexuality is fluid and realized that homosexual behavior today does not lead to gay identity tomorrow unlike race where if one is black today, he or she is black tomorrow. See the difference.

propaganda

You're are absolutely correct about gay marriage being rare. As I was writing, I saw that but I am at work and posted too quickly.

Canadian jursiprudence has nothing to do with US constitutional law. I am curious to see how Canada handles it but do they have a 1st Amendment? I am skeptical also about the claim that the Mormons are heavily favored. I need to know the source to determine whether I believe a statement like that.

Your argument that marriage is a weapon is erroneous. Marriage has been in existence for what, hundreds if not thousands of years and now some very small group of people claim that they should have a new right recognized under the existing laws that has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind and groups react to protect the institution as it stands but it is being used as a tool by those who are acting to keep it as it has been for all time? A new right is being sought. It is not those in charge seeking to impose their beliefs it is those seeking the change who are seeking to impose their beliefs that gays should be allowed to marry. Gays are using marriage as their tool to batter anyone opposed into submission by being labeled a bigot even if you support full civil rights.

You can believe it to be an inappropriate government activity but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The jurisprudence of the 1st Amendment will lead the action taken, not personal feelings.

Discrimination against religions is not the rational behind the 1st Amend. One religion cannot be favored suggesting a state religion; that is why the 1st Amend was written, to avoid the rule of law combined with religion that most of the drafters of the const. were subject to. Marriage doesn't suggest a state religion.

The 1st Amendment wasn't written to keep religion out of laws. It was written to disallow a state religion whereby one religion would be favored over any other. Marriage laws do not favor one religion over another. Marriage laws are not christian, not jewish, not hindu, etc. They do not disobey the 1st Amendment.

It is erroneous to read the 1st Amendment as disallowing any religious interjection into any government issue. One religion can't be favored over any other thereby leading to an official state religion or the appearance of one. Thus, marriage laws as they are written are not unconstitutional and not problematic.

Bob, I respect your opinion as well. However, I take heed to your statement that I have a narrow definition of nature. I believe you have a skewed definition of nature whereby you raise deviation from the norm to the level of the norm as your argumentative positition. Why do scientists even define it as deviation? Why not just make everything the norm? That is how I see your definition of nature and that is skewed. By the way, asexual reproduction only happens in the absence of an opposite sex member. If there is an opposite sex memeber, natural procreation occurs. So in times of stress on certain species, asexual reproduction will occur. But the norm will always be natural procreation. That asexual reproduction argument is the exception that proves the rule that natural procreation is favored.

To many others, not just Bob, I agree, marriage is cultural. However, EVERY culture, until recently, marriage = man and woman. I've always said that it is man's way of exalting the naturally procreative relations amongst opposite sexes. I never said that marriage existed in nature. But I will go on to state without doubt that long term, monogamous, sexually active, homosexual relations amongst any animals other than humans do not exist in the absolute. So why should we as a race exalt those relations to the level of marriage as a cultural instituion or cultural tool, if you will.

I will support civil unions. I would voice my opinion openly on that fact. I fully mean what I say about equal rights. If anyone asked me to, I would contact my reps in congress, senate, etc., I would sign petitions, I would attend a rally. I mean what I say.

As far as the state getting out of the marriage business, all of our laws have judeo christian roots so if you start cherrypicking laws based upon religious roots, you have a lot of work ahead of you. I see the point about civil unions for everyone and it is both agreeable to me and disagreeable at the same time. I don't support it, ultimately.

I don't think a compromise is necessary for 3 to 4% of the population, of which only a portion of that population wants to take advantage of the right to marry. There isn't universal agreement amongst gays that the right to marry is what is desirable. Some gays have said why would we want to copy that institution. We can have something else altogether. This is what distinguishes this movement from the 14th amendment's addressing of discrimination against Af. Americans. ALL Af. Americans wanted the right to vote, the right to equal facilities, etc. , but not all gays want the right to marry. There is a definite distinction.

I can no longer respond. My words are enough.

Bob, it was nice to hear from you, too, although you've caught me at exhaustion once again. I will think about your proposal. From a constitutional standpoint, it makes sense regarding the separation of church and state.

No more tonight.

You don't get to frame the argument Yogi. I am not arguing on your terms. I was asked for a secular reason against gay marriage and I proposed that marriage is based upon lifetime hetero unions as presented by nature. I never said marriage existed in nature. But lots of people read it that way and once they did they wouldn't let go.

I think that the supporters of gay marriage are one of the most closeminded, self righteous groups that I have ever encountered. Say your for civil unions but not marriage and you are discriminating.

I will say this again loud and clear. If it is about equal rights, which everyone says it is, then civil unions with every single damn right of marriage is in fact equal rights.

Okay? Does that make sense?

Next, if you ask for gay marriage, then there is something intangible that you are seeking, not just equal rights. If it is just rights, who the hell cares if it is civil union or marriage. You've got the rights. Keep moving. But to want marriage is to want equal recognition of gay relationships in relation to marriage. What is that? What "right" is that? Where in the constitution is that "right" listed? It isn't about inheritance, it isn't about visitation or tax issues, it is not about a right, but a need to be acknowledged. Society chooses which behavior, and it is behavior, to acknowledge. I am only one member of society and I only speak for myself.

One of the main reasons why Rome came apart was due to anything goes policies. Bachanal. Order eventually led to chaos and the empire fell. That is evolution as well as his example. I didn't deflect, I countered. Do you understand how debate works? I don't have to answer his proposal with a defense. I can cite an example of an opposite conclusion. It is shorthand but it is allowed in debate. No deflection - superior debating skills maybe.

Here's your agenda: "We’re saying that nature is a starting point and we as a society can grow past that limitation." "We're"? So, you don't think for yourself? Do you feel as though you all think alike because I bet you don't. That is the fallacious thinking here on you and others parts. Groupthink. That's caused a lot of trouble over the ages. Too many examples to cite. But examples of it are in California now where gays are "terrorizing" those who voted against gays in Prop 8. Gay men and women are only doing it because of groupthink and because they feel as though others have their back. You probably can't see out of it because you are in it. I can see it. It is actually very closeminded and actually leads to evolving of the group into extinction. Check history. Groupthink doesn't allow new thoughts into the group, only the same old, same old. I saw it here. But you didn't. I am sure.

My position has only changed in the amount of time that I pay attention to the issue. If gay marriage happens, so be it. I won't fight it. I will fully support civil unions. I am exhausted by the beligerence of gays under the guise of "if you knew how it felt to be denied a right for this long, you'd be angry too". It is a small, small but very vocal minority within the gay minority that is pushing the agenda of gays. I don't have the energy to care that much.

"Ed, I’m not going to hunt down graphic examples of gay animal sex for you". I didn't ask for graphic examples. Where is your mind at? I am not kidding about this and I am not being provocative. In a purely scientific sense, I want someone to cite an example of a long time, sexually active, homosexual, monogamous relationship in that natural world between two animals. Because I can cite numerous examples of hetero life unions.

I love the male penguin argument. Do you know if they ever had sex? Or are they "buddies"? If they haven't had sex, which they haven't, okay, lets mirror them in society. Gays can marry but can't have sex. Don't like it? Well, that's what your example shows - gays can couple but don't engage in sex. Your argument holds no water.

Your arguing that lack of gay marriage is akin to 300 years of forced servitude thru slavery? Ahem.

I want full civil rights for gay couples. 100% civil rights. But not marriage. It doesn't make sense.

Civil unions. It is the answer and it works. It worked in Denmark for 16 years. Why not here? A caveat: each state has its own laws regarding marriage, there is no national law on marriage.

Maybe it is discrimination but it may be based on being discriminating. Although I support absolutely that every gay man and woman should have full inheritance rights, visitation rights, taxation rights, etc. that every married hetero couple has, I don't see that a change in marriage is required. Gays are seeking a condoning of their behavior. If not, civil unions fulfill the request of equality. Full equal rights. But if it is only marriage that gay men and women will settle for then it is actually more than rights that are sought. Societal approval is sought. Lets be honest.

I am not anti-gay-sex. People can do whatever they want. But to ask for my approval-I am only speaking for my approval, no one elses-by elevating that relationship to the level of a lifetime relationship that doesn't compute with the rest of the natural world, I don't approve of raising it to that level.

Bad Yogi
Your on his side so you don't see the tone of his statement. Hollow and disingenuous? Implying that I'm not evolving like other superior minded folk? That is condescending, pure and simple.

Evolution includes extinction. Look it up. How about the Mayan society? We are all waiting for your explanation on that one. Why did that one disappear? Maybe they evolved to Nirvana.

Who on here has shifted his position? You apply certain standards to me because you disagree with me but read all of the other posts and give me an example of someone who hasn't made the same argument. If you can't, kindly keep your opinion to yourself.

Why is Dan's use of societal evolution sound yet when I cite an example it is a red herring? Please elaborate. I guess in your view of evolution, it is full of benevolence and grace and no darkness or death. Evolution is purely positive, right? Onward and upward?

Okay, according to your theory, since we don't see marriage ceremonies in nature, we shouldn't have them for humans. Great theory. Does that apply in all areas of humanity or just the ones you disagree with? For instance. there are no traffic laws in nature so why should we have stoplights? Or painted lines? Or tickets for speeding? Yeah, lets let nature be our only guide and disregard ALL manmade instutions because obviously, since they don't exist in nature, they are completely in error (even though every single society in the world, 100%, have marriage ceremonies). Good argument. I will call this the "Return to Nature" argument. Oh, by the way, if we do return to nature, can you cite examples of other animals engaging in long term, monogamous, homosexual relationships? Please, I am waiting for that one.

I had a very civil, interesting, educated dialogue on here recently. Currently, all of those qualities are missing from your post and Dan's post.

Oh, yeah, societies evolve. Look at Rome and its implosion. That was evolution. And some species evolve to the point of extinction. Your argument is moot.

Dan
The content on here was pretty civil til you chirped in.

I want examples in nature of two animals engaging in full blown gay sex. Please. Two females pleasing each other in full sexual relations. Or two males with full insertion.

Or failing that, how about a lifetime commited gay relationship amongst two animals? With sex, of course. I know that some animals couple for life. Do those same species also mate homosexually for life?

The theory behind marriage is lifetime commitment. I don't see anywhere in nature where there is gay lifetime commitment except some humans which makes us odd. Well developed brains can be a wonderful thing but they can also take us very, very far away from our true nature as animals.

Your comments that I sound "hollow and disingenous": do you understand what disingenous means cause I think you don't.

You shouldn't write past your bedtime. You sound screechy and your vitriol seems to come out.

Its funny that you use the word "exhausted" because I am exhausted too. I thought a lot about this since last posting and your posts have made me evaluate my point of view which is yet to be determined. Thank you for the rational discourse and respect. Nice blog, not too nasty, which is rare and unusual. My opinion may be changing based on all of these posts of mine and others.

Bob

My nature argument is that marriage is an idealization of the male-female relationship that bascally exists in all living things except for rare times like asexual reproduction. Hopefully, we can all agree that we need intersexual activity for the world as we now it to go on, not just for humans but all life. Marriage is mans' codification of that union with additional motivation including bloodline, property, etc. But it is a codification of male-female unions that exist in nature. I am not arguing that marriage is nature but that it is mans' codifying of behavior that exists in nature. Whether polygamous or not, it has always been male-female, as coupling in nature is, notwithstanding nature under duress, meaning no mates leading to asexual reproduction. My nature argument is simple - it takes male and female to reproduce, egg and sperm, one produced by man, one produced by woman. Marriage is mans' way of exalting that natural action, protecting it, enhancing it with additonal rights that are only specific to humans. It is simple belief, don't complicate it. I don't believe that it is an argument because I don't have to convince anyone of what I believe. The only argument is the one against marriage as it currently stands.

You said asexual reproduction means my nature argument doesn't work. You misstated my argument by saying that I said marriage is a mirror of nature. If I did argue that marriage was a mirror of nature, by arguing asexual reproduction as disproof of marriage as nature, you were in effect arguing that there should be no laws if any anomaly exists, thus no laws, because there is always an exception. Do you see that your argument doesn't grasp what I am stating?

The asexual reproduction argument is silly. Most asexual reproduction is due to a lack of the opposite sex at the time. For instance, certain female lizards will asexually reproduce when no males are around and then spawn only males and then reproduce naturally with those male offspring and only then can female lizards be born. As a norm, asexual reproduction generally isn't a norm. This argument is trotted out again and again and its trite.

If it was solely about property rights, a marriage would only extend to the immediate couple, according to your reason for marriage, and not to the lineage purposes of marriage. Procreation creates lineage and ensures property rights reinforcing heterosexual marriage. Historically, only a heterosexual couple can naturally reproduce.

By your implication and not by my statement, we should have no laws like traffic signals since they don't exist in nature. In trying to refute my argument, you basically say that since there is asexual reproduction, we should chuck marriage. We should be lawless and not encourage societal norms. I don't argue that we mirror nature, I argue that we encourage behaviors for certain societal beliefs. A bloodline has been considered worthwhile in every society, it seems . You only get a natural bloodline through natural procreation. Marriage reinforces the bloodline. Pretty straightforward to me.

I never argued that sexual reproduction equals marriage. You're either attempting to simplify my point or don't understand it. There are myriad reasons but underlying it is extending the bloodline and protection of the bloodline for property right purposes. It does all go back to the hoped-for ability to reproduce and continue the bloodline.

Again, one century of gay identity is an anomaly in the history of the world. Marriage as an institution isn't built to accommodate this new thing. The same reasoning does not exist for gay marriage and is not reflective of anything else in the real world (I will stay away from the word "nature" if that helps). What does gay marriage resemble that it should be elevated by the human race to so symbolic a spot that eons of history should be changed for a relatively new and rare phenomenom? Most people, religious or not, agree that it is not a societal ideal yet create room for it to exist, i.e. civil unions.

Marriage is a symbolic union of the state of nature whereby basically every living organism requires a member of the opposite sex to procreate. Marriage enforces the strength of this union. Its that simple, to me, maybe not to you. I am a highly educated person living in NYC and I've read up on lots of reasoning for and against gay marriage and I believe it boils down to it being a symbolic union of natural instincts. It just so happens that basically every society has some form of marriage between heterosexuals. If that is not symbolic of the supreme union of male and female, what is? So many societies also have male and female deities that require both to coexist for nature. You don't hear about two male deities getting it on or two female deities getting it on.

One century of gay identity is not a tradition. It is an anomaly. I am not saying gay sex is not natural but to elevate gay relationships to the level of heterosexual relationships reflects NOTHING in nature.

My last post on this message: there is no groundswell of support for gay marriage in any major way. Put "gay marriage" into google news and see what I mean. Here is a sample:

'"Everything but marriage" bill for gay couples' in Seattle
"Gay group wants 'partnerships' on ballot" in Arizona
"Wyoming Moves To Ban Gay Marriage" in Wyoming obviously

and this is a small, small sample just on the first two pages. Gay marriage is not inevitable and for those who think it is, you are reading the wrong tea leaves. It is not homophobic to grant the same rights and not call it marriage. It is not discriminatory.

The argument that I made for marriage being nature based and the argument against it being that there are couples that cannot procreate-there have always been couples that couldn't procreate but there has never been a cry for gay marriage like now, never before. That is because only recently has there been such a thing as a queer identity. Gay sex has always happened and always will. To identify oneself as gay is new and I don't know if it is right or wrong. It doesn't seem to match anything else in the natural world.

I don't care though about whether someone identifies him or herself as gay. But I do not see gay marriage as an ideal to aspire to.

If that last post was meant to be insulting, about lacking the substrate to grasp this, well, me and the rest of the civilized world don't have the requisite substrate except for about 5 to 10 societies.

Education doesn't protect people from ignorance. Don't try to claim intellectual superiority because my argument is so simplistic. I am a longtime NYCer with all of the indie credentials you could wish for. I support civil unions but not gay marriage. There is no need for me to explain my understanding of nature. If you can't understand that, maybe your substrate needs some fine-tuning.

If supporters of SSM were such a strong voting block, hmmm, how many states would not have defined marriage as between a man and a woman? A few pockets in the large cities on the coasts doesn't mean much - except for loud voices in major media which is problematic as far as my position is concerned, I concede. But the media loves a fight and loves an underdog. That is how SSM will win.

Good luck, John!

In your opinion it is the less harmful path. In many other people's opinion it is the more harmful path.

How is one group trod upon? What tryannical actions? Worst traditions? Rhetoric, much?

Read up on Denmark and how successfully they've integrated civil unions, not marriage, into their society for the last 16 years (the longest on record as far as countries go). Your argument bespeaks of a louder national discussion than I believe we are in for. I know the history of this discussion in other countries. You should read up on them.

There is not one piece of evidence to suggest that it will harm our society either to leave things the way they are. If this is so strong an urge, why have only 5 to 10 countries drafted laws to allow gay marriage while many, many more have permitted civil unions? You've made no point here.

Not upset? Your emphatic use of the word "bullshit" in an earlier reply suggests otherwise.

You try to lump me in with "most people" as your way of attempting to diminish my personal argument, as though I am not thinking for myself. On the contrary, I think for myself and I reflect upon what greater society is doing, whether I agree or not. I am only relating my perspective on what I see. Someone asked for a secular argument and I gave one regardless of what most people think. "Most people" on this website might think differently than me but so what? It is a silly way on your part to try to diminish what I have written without addressing cogent thoughts. Silly.

If you are not suggesting that marriage should be changed, then why get upset? Let's leave it as it is. End of discussion.

The in nature argument is useless TO YOU. Not to most people. And civilization codifies desirable human behavior. That is what civilization exists for. Not everything exists in civilization because society chooses what it wants. But civilization is an extension of the desirable parts of nature, trying to play those up while trying to diminish our baser instincts such as murder. Thus, civilization is an extension of nature not a mirror of, which is what you suggest I meant. Never said it.

Two male dogs humping each other do not a civilization make. And that is an act of domination, not sex. There is no intercourse.

That being said, laws extend from human nature. Morality, ethics, etc. are the basis for laws. Humans are different from animals with the ability to codify behavior. Thus, marriage is human creation that extends upon observed human behavior. Anything I write to you will be empty and unconvincing. It doesn't matter to me if I convince you or not. It is up to you to convince me that marriage should be changed not the other way around.

And the old separate but equal argument is trite. Equating the unfair treatment in so many aspects of life - schooling, access to public facilities and utilities, etc. -to the lack of the right for some gay men and women to marry is ridiculous on its face. That argument holds no water in comparison to what the original Supreme Court cases stood for.

There is no separate but equal here. In my world, gay men and women can go and register for civil unions as can hetero men and women. However, marriage, if so chosen, is reserved to hetero unions. This is how it is done in most countries that allow civil unions and those countries don't have the separate but equal case law for opponents to incorrectly cite.

To E.D. Kain

Your argument is one that comes up every single time I make my statement. The infertile straight couple. And because of this couple, this supposed couple, gay relationships are the equivalent. Not in nature. If you have an infertile animal that appears fertile, the opposite sex will still approach for procreation. That is nature. Your argument doesn't work for me.

The lack of being able to procreate does not overrule natural instincts as shown but every living thing on the face of the earth. You can't disagree with nature unfortunately. It simply is.

Your rationality, however, is charming. The use of the word "bullshit" makes your argument much more persuasive.

The procreation argument has everything to do with why every society in the world except for maybe 5 -10 recognize marriage as between a man and woman and not man-man or woman-woman. Whether it is explicit or not is a separate issue.

Simply because the last 30 or 40 years have allowed for fertility treatments and adoption has been a part of life for many years doesn't override natural drives and instincts for the race or species to continue. If we didn't have that drive, we wouldn't be here. I can't argue with that. If marriage is the supremely ideal way of humans manifesting that instinct, it will always be heterosexual.

There is no discrimination against gay men or women intended. I view individuals as individuals whether gay or straight and all should have equal rights. Civil unions with equal rights are where I stand.

A valid secular reason? No same sex couple can ever naturally procreate. Never. Ever. Basically, all of nature requires a union of opposing sexes to continue its existence. Yes, there are a few asexual reproductive species when times are tough but even those species opt for natural procreation. This is enough for me. No religion involved.

Civil unions with all attendant rights work for me. Also, how many societies in the world allow for gay marriage? Under 10. The majority of the world whether religious or not sees marriage as singularly heterosexually based while the more progressive nations extend civil rights benefits to same sex partners. It is not due to a lack of education or familiarity with gay people but due to nature itself. I don't need religion to tell me how nature works and to elevate a non-procreative relationship to the same ideal as one that is naturally procreative is equating two things that are not inherently equal on this very specific but very necessary footing.

Hey John, the underlying posit of family has been until the last century natural procreation and the ability to achieve that. That one simple but oh-so-crucial distinction made marriage what it is and has always been. Have times changed? Yes. But that doesn't mean the ideal shouldn't still exist. You can call it FAMILY but that presumes procreation since the beginning of time until the last 30 to 40 years.

I agree that a civil union should be recognized by the state but not be the equivalent of a marriage. I am speaking again in ideals. I am sure that there are gay partnerships that are "better' than hetero but that doesn't mean that I believe they are equal. It also goes beyond procreation. It is about the marriage of equals yet differences. The sexes are different and in the flora and fauna they seem to be necessarily complimentary. I don't believe that gay relationships between humans as a whole match anything else in nature.

The religious argument is trotted out by gay marriage advocates is that the sole reason for marriage is a religious reason. My point is that even secular societies have marriage. You reiterated my point by saying different cultures have differing reasons for marriage. Therefore, the argument to remove religion from marriage and that will make it open to all, including gays, is falacious.

If marriage is solely a "religious" institution then every society in the world is religious and there is no such thing as a secular society. Thus, by reverse logic, marriage is not solely a religious institution. It is more than that.

The difference between same sex marriage and traditional marriage is the natural ability to procreate. It is a pure scientific argument for traditional marriage, one to which a same sex couple can never hope to achieve. That is the reason for traditional marriage and that is why same sex marriage will never exist on the same plane.

Marriage is an ideal. The vows of marriage are an ideal. They are not a reality but an ideal that a couple strives for. The reason I bring this up is every time I mention the scientific basis for hetero marriage as being the ideal (of every society on earth) is that someone always cites an infertile couple or an unhappy couple as examples of marriages that don't fit the ideal. Guess what? No marriage fits the ideal but most strive for it. And gay marriages can never meet the ideal of a stable, naturally procreative relationship.

Civil unions? Absolutely. No doubt. Will some civil unions be stronger and greater than some hetero marriages? Absolutely. But they aren't the same.