Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

I'd really like to hear the argument Dirty Name can provide why a parent of a minor child should be set free by divorce laws, to "potentially" repeat this pattern with MORE families.

I guess I don't understand how this question is related to same-sex marriage. The idea of marriage isn't to literally lock people into something they cannot escape from no matter the circumstances. The idea is to provide psychological, legal and economic anchors that help hold such relationships together.

It's still a free country where people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they are willing to accept the consequences associated with their decisions. In the case of serial divorcees who want to get married again - the new spouse is essentially taking responsibility for the parent AND the child, negating any burden on the welfare system or other such programs, to be replaced only by a small tax break and (potentially) social security survivor benefits on the economic side of the equation.

I really don't know what you're bitching about.

Begining a family is a serious decision, raising the next generation is a serious decision, where are the serious laws to provide this stability you claim is essential?

We are in agreement that divorce is too easy. But it doesn't change the fact that marriage encourages stability, which is essential for the raising of children.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'd really like to hear the argument Dirty Name can provide why a parent of a minor child should be set free by divorce laws, to "potentially" repeat this pattern with MORE families. I guess I don't understand how this question is related to same-sex marriage. The idea of marriage isn't to literally lock people into something they cannot escape from no matter the circumstances. The idea is to provide a psychological, legal and economic anchors that help hold such relationships together. It's still a free country where people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they are willing to accept the consequences associated with their decisions. In the case of serial divorcees who want to get married again - the new spouse is essentially taking responsibility for the parent AND the child, negating any burden on the welfare system or other such programs, to be replaced only by a small tax break and (potentially) social security survivor benefits on the economic side of the equation. I really don't know what you're bitching about. Begining a family is a serious decision, raising the next generation is a serious decision, where are the serious laws to provide this stability you claim is essential?

Your ENTIRE argument is based on the stability of the nuclear family and the potential for children, but the laws you won't support, would provide stability.
An anchor by definition is used to STAY PUT, your argument is a sail is just fine to replace the anchor........amazing!
You claim this is NO BIG DEAL and I'm just bitching. How many minor children in America are being raised in one parent homes due to divorce? How many from second and third divorces?
There are 1000 benefits married people are awarded, that non-married people don't qualify for, so don't minimize the extent of what a SWEET deal married straight people have in this society by saying it's merely Social Security benefit survivorship.So you think this is fair that single people pick up the tab for the reckless abandon you unresponsible parents foist on us?
That sentence this is still a free country that people willing to face the consequences should be able to do as they wish, could be used by pro-gay marriage folks just as well.

[underbear1]

I didn't lock anyone into a nuclear family, I said in abuse cases seperation is necessary, but divorce is quite a different matter. That is a get out of jail free card to go repeat this pattern.

[Dirty Name]

Your ENTIRE argument is based on the stability of the nuclear family and the potential for children, but the laws you won't support, would provide stability.

What are you talking about??? What "laws" are you referring to that "I won't support?" I already clearly stated that NO FAULT DIVORCE is a BAD idea. We are in agreement.

Sheesh.

[Dirty Name]

There are 1000 benefits married people are awarded, that non-married people don't qualify for, so don't minimize the extent of what a SWEET deal married straight people have in this society by saying it's merely Social Security benefit survivorship.

I'm fairly certain that a gay person, with ZERO chance to father offspring with his spouse, would consider marriage a SWEET deal - after all, it's just a bunch of freebies, with ZERO difference in lifestyle for the remainder of their "marriage" unless they choose to make it different.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Dirty Name There are 1000 benefits married people are awarded, that non-married people don't qualify for, so don't minimize the extent of what a SWEET deal married straight people have in this society by saying it's merely Social Security benefit survivorship. I'm fairly certain that a gay person, with ZERO chance to father offspring with his spouse, would consider marriage a SWEET deal - after all, it's just a bunch of freebies, with ZERO difference in lifestyle for the remainder of their "marriage" unless they choose to make it different.

OBVIOUSLY you'd be wrong since the gay people you say wouldn't want this right, say they want it. If your free America where people can do as they wish, is valid, as long as they are willing to face the consequences, (which btw. would include being responsible for joint debts, and hospitalization bills, which currently gay partners without marriage aren't responsible to pay.)
If you recant the stability of the nuclear family argument, you got NUTHIN!

[underbear1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Your ENTIRE argument is based on the stability of the nuclear family and the potential for children, but the laws you won't support, would provide stability. What are you talking about??? What "laws" are you referring to that "I won't support?" I already clearly stated that NO FAULT DIVORCE is a BAD idea. We are in agreement. Sheesh.

You said above marriage is just fine "as is", which includes divorce of parents of minor children. I said NO DIVORCE for parents of minor children should be allowed, not just no-fault.

and you can sheesh till your teeth fall out........sparky

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, I reject this argument on the basis that it's clearly age discrimination. There is no way around this. Further, in no way do I advocate the government trying to determine who is fertile and who is not, beyond determining that we have one male and one female. Every attempt you make to dig deeper into the fertility issue is just inviting trouble, either in the form of invasion of privacy or age discrimination. I don't think you really want to go there anyway, except to get me to agree to something that is logically flawed so you can say "gotcha." My argument works, it holds up to legal and logical scrutiny, and yours does not.

There is no difference. As you have been saying since I joined this argument, the laws against discrimination refer to each individual's ability to access the same government protections, benefits, what have you; it promises nothing to a couple, since a couple is not protected under our Constitution. An old man can marry a young woman and gain the benefits; an old woman can marry a young man and gain the benefits. If they choose to marry old people, they willingly sacrifice the benefits; but that is their choice. There is no discrimination. You can say that it's "clearly" anything you like, but it has exactly the same force as your own argument concerning gender discrimination and homosexual marriage. If you refute this argument, you refute your own. You say that determining gender is not an invasion of privacy; I say determining age is not either. After all, we have to make sure both people are 18, don't we?

Quote by: Dirty Name So what? How many of those countries actually encourage it via some form of governmental action? Very few - and none of them notable.

Ah, but that was not you question, was it? You asked me to name countries that use a communal system of child-rearing; if you count the extended family as "communal," the answer I gave was correct. This is a different question, and I will refer you to your own next answer for this one.

Quote by: Dirty Name Because America is a great nation, and that's the level we are playing at. I don't give a crap if Timbuktu has a wonderful communal family policy. Our country is the lone superpower in the world, and suddenly altering a significant pillar of our society so that we can mimick the success of some third-rate nation's strange family custom would be very bad policy indeed.

Now somehow monogamous heterosexual marriage is the foundation of this country's greatness? You are beginning to sound desperate, sir. If Timbuktu has a lower divorce rate, a lower rate of single parent families, and a lower rate of children who grow up to be a drain on society becuase they lacked a stable upbringing, why on earth would their lack of economic or military might make them a poor example for our marriage laws to imitate? Because that wouold be "un-American?"

Quote by: Dirty Name Of course it does. But so what? The question is, how does my marriage make YOUR life better? The answer, in my argument, is only that a strong relationship means that my wife and I will raise our children without any help from the state, and that our children won't become an additional burden to you, the taxpayer.

You are also a citizen, and a member of my society; if you are a more stable and productive citizen because of your marriage, it has just as much effect as that of your stable, productive children.

Quote by: Dirty Name And I say marriage, without children, is a wash for society. There will be some good, and some bad. But I am aware of ZERO negatives associated with marriage as it pertains to childrearing and the strengthening of the relationship. If a marriage with children fails, the relationship would have failed with or without marriage.

You can say that marriage without kids is irrelevant to society; I expect you to say that, since that is your entire position. However, your saying it doesn't make it so. Your conceit that a marriage with children would have failed without it is absurd, and you know it. You honestly believe that children have no effect on the relationship of the parents? I am also unaware of any negatives pertaining to marriage as a stabilizing influence on the people involved; have ever any criminals been made more dangerous by marriage?

I do not see any argument here that disproves my thesis: marriage is good for the people involved, and should be encouraged in order that the couple themselves may benefit. Good marriages serve as strong examples to future generations, thus helping those future generations find their own strong marriages, which benefits both the individual spouses, as well as any children they should have. As it stands now, the institution of marriage is in deep distress; clearly, the purely economic view of marriage, the limited, biased view of marriage that is the current ideal, is not working to promote the state's best interest. It should be changed. If you have a different way to change the view of marriage, by all means, suggest it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name The state has NO STAKE in the outcome of any relationship whatsoever - unless that relationship yeilds offspring. If people fall in love, then out of love, it has no impact on the state. But if people CONCEIVE A CHILD, well, there's suddenly a world of difference.

The state has a stake in ensuring the greatest possible happiness and stability to all of its citizens; first, because that keeps them as useful members of the society, and second, because it is a part of society's role. Society exists to make the people in the society happy, or satisfied, or whatever word you want to use; there is a correlation between marriage and those benefits.

Quote by: Dirty Name So to answer your question, the state should NOT be in the business of promoting marriage as though it's similar to a rejuvenating trip to a health spa. You sound as though you now believe our government should run ads encouraging people to get married so they can "experience a lifetime of wedded bliss."

All I have said is that marriage seems to have positive effects on the people involved; any hyperbole is yours, not mine.

Quote by: Dirty Name That's absurd. So, one more time... the public doesn't and shouldn't give a flying crap about love and the relationships of it's citizens, except when those relationships have the potential to impact a third party (i.e. you, me, or their own child)

But your happy marriage does affect me, just as your happy, well-adjusted child affects me. We live in different states; I'm never actually going to MEET your child. But if your child is a productive member of my society, that helps me; the same holds true for you yourself, children or not. The society is made up of ALL citizens, not just the kids.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name How 'bout we compromise and just ban "no-fault" divorce? I have no problem with divorce if one of the parties has broken the marriage convenant and cannot be trusted further.

I asked you to explain how it fits into your schema, not to justify its continued existence. The very fact that there are no-fault divorce laws show something about your idea that the state wishes to promote stable child-rearing environments; clearly, if the state allows no-fault divorce laws, it is not doing the job that you have ascribed to it. Why would the state go against its own best interests? Can you explain that?

Quote by: Dirty Name What's so ground-breaking about that? People do it every day. I don't see what you are advocating here. We already give such parents the child tax credit, married or not. What more incentive do you want to dangle in front of people who have already shown how irresponsible they are?

Are you now suggesting that the parents of a child don't need to be married? And why this dig at unmarried parents, as being "irresponsible?" Are married people the only responsible ones in society?

Quote by: Dirty Name I've NEVER claimed that a nuclear family must be married in order to make a stable child-rearing environment. But I do believe marriage promotes a stable nuclear family. If you want those stats, I'm sure you can Google them, as they are pretty obvious.

You have suggested that a married couple, a nuclear family, is the optimum child-rearing environment. Marriage is recognized by the state, according to you, only to promote that family. Very well, you have not insisted they be married; but if marriage is not necessary for stable child-rearing, where is your argument against gay marriage? You would keep marriage as between a man and a woman, just in case they choose to marry, though you accept them as potentially stable parents without it? What is the point of marriage then?

Quote by: Dirty Name How so? I don't recall reading anything you posted which supports your theory. Further, I am arguing (and I believe you already agreed, that implying marriage isn't a prerequisite for child-bearing is hurting child-rearing.

No, I did not agree to that. I agreed that a married couple makes a stable child-rearing environment. I did not agree that they need to be married to create a stable child-rearing environment, though the fact that you say it here seems to contradict what you said above, that a couple doesn't need to be married to create a stable child-rearing environment. Doesn't it?

Implying that marriage is a prerequisite for bearing children is hurting child-rearing, because this is exactly the social expectation that leads to divorce. People marry when they do not want to, because they believe they HAVE to. If someone wants to have children, but does not want to marry, they should not feel they have to marry in order to have children; that idea will force them to marry the wrong person, and they will join the 60% divorce rate. We must show people that marriage is about love, not about children; then, perhaps, people will marry for love, and stay together once they have children with that beloved spouse. I also believe that a child would do better with a single, independent, capable parent, than with a disfunctional couple who married only because society said they had to, once a child was conceived, but that belief is beside the point; society would benefit from having marriages that were based on the relationship between the spouses, not just the urge to procreate. That is my argument. Have you disproven that? Do you believe that people who marry only for the sake of the children will create a stable, functional family unit? Or do you think the couple need to love, honor, and cherish each other, before they can make a capable parenting team?

I have not yet seen a strong counter argument from you, sir; you have angrily disagreed with me, but you have not disproven any of my points. You are falling back on the same insults you used a month ago, by calling me Psycho, when I have not lost my temper with you. What did I do to deserve this epithet, other than frustrate you?

Once again: your position would be better served if you took your time and found a reasoned, considered argument against mine. I, unlike yourself, do not hold that my position is unassailable; but this knee-jerk responding is not helping you to break down my points.

1. Your thesis that the state only promotes marriage to promote child-rearing is false; the state also promotes it for the sake of the married couple themselves.
2. The state should promote marriage as a stabilizing influence, and a source of potential happiness for those involved, among all couples, fertile and infertile alike.
3. The current view of marriage as a legal prerequisite to child rearing, a view maintained by the current distribution of marriage benefits and by the ban on gay marriage, is actually hurting both marriage and child-rearing, by equating marriage with child-rearing, when it should be about the couple themselves first, and children second.
4. The state should promote stable marriages, especially infertile stable marriages, as a counterpoint to the current detrimental view of marriage. These stable, infertile marriages would include both post-menopausal couples, and homosexual couples. However the state may feel about people's love for one another, people should see others who marry for love, and only for love, so that they will try to emulate this. This will help to stabilize the nuclear family for fertile couples, thus making up for the benefits paid to infertile couples; these would, of course, be worth paying anyway, in that they would promote the positive effects associated with the state of marriage.

Is that clear enough?

[underbear1]

Dirty Name you have made the distinction that an individual can't be discriminated against due to sexual orientation, but there is no protection for couples being discriminated on sexual orientation. There aren't laws which protect couples against age discrimination either. I doubt there are laws protecting couples against many discriminations, such as disability, which we would assume both parties would be protected individually, so therefore as a couple they'd be protected. You don't seem willing to provide that assumption to gay couples.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: underbear1 I said NO DIVORCE for parents of minor children should be allowed, not just no-fault.

Quote by: underbear1 I said in abuse cases seperation is necessary

Make up your mind. Perhaps then we'll talk.

[underbear1]

Seperation isn't divorce.
Seperation means the partners don't cohabitate, but remain married.
As long as a parent has a minor child he/she can't divorce.

[Dirty Name]

If they choose to marry old people, they willingly sacrifice the benefits; but that is their choice. There is no discrimination.

There is ALWAYS discrimination. However, some forms of discrimination are ILLEGAL. So let's take a look at what BASIS is used to discriminate in each case:

I say that the current marriage laws in Ohio, for example, do discriminate against certain couples based on gender composition, which is perfectly legal. Does it also effectively prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice? Yes. Absolutely. In the same way the phrase "one man and one woman" effectively prevents Mormons from marrying multiple partners without discriminating against Mormons specifically.

In your argument though, you advocate not allowing people to marry based on, what? The age of one of the individuals...therefore, you are discriminating for an ILLEGAL reason, no matter how you try to spin it.

More specifically, you are discriminating against elderly women, as they are the ones that are affected by age, whereas an elderly man, in many cases, could probably still supply the necessary ingredients to make a baby.

That fact that you haven't even thought that much through basically invalidates your entire argument. Please spare me the rest of this fishing expedition.

Now somehow monogamous heterosexual marriage is the foundation of this country's greatness?

Part of it, certainly.

If Timbuktu has a lower divorce rate, a lower rate of single parent families, and a lower rate of children who grow up to be a drain on society becuase they lacked a stable upbringing, why on earth would their lack of economic or military might make them a poor example for our marriage laws to imitate? Because that wouold be "un-American?"

No, because it's a fantasy. Give me specifics and stop dealing with made-up hypotheticals. Show me a country where these statistics exist, and then I'll be more than willing to debate you on the merits. The ball is in your court.

You are also a citizen, and a member of my society; if you are a more stable and productive citizen because of your marriage, it has just as much effect as that of your stable, productive children.

But the point is that children are better off when they are raised in a stable family because they learn essential skills and form habits to be productive when they are adults. I dare say that my marriage has NOT made me any better citizen than if I were single. It's merely made me different. If I were single, I would probably work longer hours and devote much more time to my job than I do now. But that isn't necessarily a good thing either.

You are dealing with hypotheticals again. My argument deals in absolutes. Find a way to prove that marriage makes both parties into better citizens. I don't think you can.

Your conceit that a marriage with children would have failed without it is absurd, and you know it.

I don't think so. A married couple whose relationship fails would have failed if they were not married, too. That's what I'm saying. I cannot imagine a scenario where marriage itself causes a breakup. I can imagine a scenario where marriage might save the relationship. And to make my point, I'm saying that if a marriage between two people without children is disolved, what impact does that have on the public? But if a marriage with children fails, it does have an impact, because the child is now raised in a single-parent home...

Are you following now?

I am also unaware of any negatives pertaining to marriage as a stabilizing influence on the people involved; have ever any criminals been made more dangerous by marriage?

Sure. Husbands and wives kill their spouses all the time, just to get out of the relationship. I'm sure I could think of more if I had time for such nonsense.

I do not see any argument here that disproves my thesis: marriage is good for the people involved, and should be encouraged in order that the couple themselves may benefit.

How about the very simple question of asking you to support your thesis with facts? You can't do it. You are trying to suggest an alternative theory with zero factual support, one that you claim trumps my own argument - even though you agree with me that procreation is a significant part of the marriage equation.

So here we have a situation where you admit that procreation factors significantly in the marriage debate, while at the same time asking me to accept your unsupported theory that marriage should be encouraged for everyone.

The fact is, there is ZERO evidence that marriage makes the spouses into better citizens. ZERO. I would argue that good citizens are made by the way they are raised - as I have always maintained and as you cannot disprove.

[underbear1]

Another addition to divorce laws that would be based on the banckruptcy model. You are entitled to survive one mistake and begin your life anew, but you aren't able to refile for bankruptcy again for seven years. So after one divorce, you can't file again for a minimum of seven years, that should help prevent these repeat offenders with a trail lousey marriages, each producing a couple kids as the result of lax regulations.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name There is ALWAYS discrimination. However, some forms of discrimination are ILLEGAL. So let's take a look at what BASIS is used to discriminate in each case: I say that the current marriage laws in Ohio, for example, do discriminate against certain couples based on gender composition, which is perfectly legal. Does it also effectively prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice? Yes. Absolutely. In the same way the phrase "one man and one woman" effectively prevents Mormons from marrying multiple partners without discriminating against Mormons specifically. In your argument though, you advocate not allowing people to marry based on, what? The age of one of the individuals...therefore, you are discriminating for an ILLEGAL reason, no matter how you try to spin it. More specifically, you are discriminating against elderly women, as they are the ones that are affected by age, whereas an elderly man, in many cases, could probably still supply the necessary ingredients to make a baby. That fact that you haven't even thought that much through basically invalidates your entire argument. Please spare me the rest of this fishing expedition.

You are not reading what I have written. The only couples that should be banned, if your thesis that the state promotes marriage only for child-rearing is correct, are couples in which both individuals are past child-bearing age. If either member of the couple is still of an age when it would be reasonable to expect child-bearing, the marriage would be legal. I have thought it out. The argument is the same as yours. An older couple might be discriminated against, but individuals are not, therefore it is not illegal discrimination. The fact that this ban on post-menopausal marriage has not happened, is evidence that the state has other reasons to promote marriage. Tell me, what reasons do YOU think these are?

Quote by: Dirty Name No, because it's a fantasy. Give me specifics and stop dealing with made-up hypotheticals. Show me a country where these statistics exist, and then I'll be more than willing to debate you on the merits. The ball is in your court.

Ah, here it is: the demand for statistics, links, provable citations.
Give me yours, first. Give me the statistics, from a reputable source, that prove that marriage is the optimal environment for raising productive children. You have never done this, and when I said this same thing to you, that you were dealing only in hypotheticals that made sense to you but could not be proven, you ignored me. Admittedly, I was ruder when I did it, but you have no more objective proof than I. Since this began with your statements concerning gay marriage, you need to prove your statements, first. And do not come back with something to the effect of "Of course marriage makes a more stable child-rearing environment. How could it not? How ridiculous!" That is opinionated rhetoric, and it is meaningless.
Proof. Statistics. Evidence.
Your move.

Quote by: Dirty Name But the point is that children are better off when they are raised in a stable family because they learn essential skills and form habits to be productive when they are adults. I dare say that my marriage has NOT made me any better citizen than if I were single. It's merely made me different. If I were single, I would probably work longer hours and devote much more time to my job than I do now. But that isn't necessarily a good thing either. You are dealing with hypotheticals again. My argument deals in absolutes. Find a way to prove that marriage makes both parties into better citizens. I don't think you can.

Tell me the absolutes in your argument, please. I have never seen any. You cannot prove that marriage makes better children. I will bet that any evidence you find will not be conclusive, because, as you know perfectly well, there are too many potential influences on a child to pin the results on one part of the child's environment; there is even the argument that the environment in which the child is raised means nothing, that only the genes matter, which would invalidate everything you have said.
My argument is specifically formulated to follow the same logic, the same arguments, the same common sense but unprovable facts, that yours does. If mine is invalid, so is yours.

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't think so. A married couple whose relationship fails would have failed if they were not married, too. That's what I'm saying. I cannot imagine a scenario where marriage itself causes a breakup. I can imagine a scenario where marriage might save the relationship. And to make my point, I'm saying that if a marriage between two people without children is disolved, what impact does that have on the public? But if a marriage with children fails, it does have an impact, because the child is now raised in a single-parent home... Are you following now?

Yes, thank you. This makes more sense to me. But it is still wrong: there is no couple that stays together just for the marriage, in my opinion. They may stay together for their religious views (e.g., Catholics that do not accept divorce), but first, that isn't the same thing, and second, as a religious argument, that is irrelevant; to use that as a reason to support marriage is to put the state in a position of promoting religion.

Quote by: Dirty Name Sure. Husbands and wives kill their spouses all the time, just to get out of the relationship. I'm sure I could think of more if I had time for such nonsense.

I'm sorry, this is your example of the downside of marriage? It leads to murder? So how can you suggest that marriage is a good thing for the state? Are you promoting state-sanctioned killing of innocent spouses?
And you say you have no time for nonsense? How interesting. So how long have you been arguing this thread?

Quote by: Dirty Name How about the very simple question of asking you to support your thesis with facts? You can't do it. You are trying to suggest an alternative theory with zero factual support, one that you claim trumps my own argument - even though you agree with me that procreation is a significant part of the marriage equation.

I think your argument falls apart when these further facts are brought into play. I do not personally agree with your argument. I have no objective facts. Neither do you. There are no objective, unquestionable facts in this debate; we are neck-deep in soft science, and always have been. I find this supercilious attitude of yours quite ironic.

Quote by: Dirty Name So here we have a situation where you admit that procreation factors significantly in the marriage debate, while at the same time asking me to accept your unsupported theory that marriage should be encouraged for everyone.

No. We have this situation where your unsupported theory, that marriage is promoted by the state only for the purpose of child-rearing, is countered by my unsupported theory that the state has other reasons, as well. We have a situation where you seem happy to think that marriage doesn't affect the people involved, but does, somehow, miraculously make the children into good Americans, and has made this country great -- and yet, should only be granted to those who need the money for their kids. And somehow, my argument is hard to accept.

Quote by: Dirty Name The fact is, there is ZERO evidence that marriage makes the spouses into better citizens. ZERO. I would argue that good citizens are made by the way they are raised - as I have always maintained and as you cannot disprove.

Give me your evidence. I will try to disprove it. You have never said anything I have read that would constitute actual, factual, evidence. You have rhetoric. You have logic. And you have your ability to ignore, and belittle, anyone who debates you. You have never had proof. Why should I have any?

Prove:
1. The laws that created the marriage benefits were intended to promote child-rearing. Show me legislators' quotes from the debates leading up to the laws; show me the text of the laws themselves; show me the polls, done by reputable sources at the time, that say the people supported the marriage laws for that reason, and that reason alone -- or even primarily.
2. That married procreation can be conclusively proven to be a positive environment for children to be raised in; not adoption, not unmarried couples, not communal family groups, not polygamy: monogamous, heterosexual, marriage, with biologically produced children conceived after the marriage. Prove that that is the ideal situation, with statistics, from a reputable source, that show longitudinal studies with a reasonable sample size, and scientific methods of inquiry. You can try using statistics from a less credible source, if you can find them; but they will be questionable.
3. That the marriage benefits currently offered by the state, and denied to homosexuals, have had a positive effect on marriage, AND on stable child-rearing, in this country.
**If you have posted this in this thread, and I have missed it, please link to the post.**

This is it, Dirty Name. Put up, or shut up.

[_citylightsburn]

In the Constitution, doesn't it say that we have the right to the pursuit of happiness? I'm pretty sure that marriage falls under that catagory. ANYONE should be able to get married...it's not the government's business when a man and a woman get married...why should 'homosexual marriages' be any different?

[mr.perfecto]

Sure, anyone should be able to get married. In fact, anyone can. Well, except when we tell them they can't. So I guess it is society's buisness when a man and a woman attempt to marry.

I think the point you (and the whole in favor/I don't care crowd) are missing is that right now as it is people in a relationship with a person of the same sex can do what they want, when they want with regards to that relationship. That is not the case with a married couple. So, to flip it around. Why should society want to place hurdles for same-sex couples to leap over and hoops for them to jump through? What purpose would it serve?

Because that is really what we are talking about. Marriage isn't just a file in the archives somewhere with "Bill <3 Bobbie-Sue" on it that gay folks can't sign their names on. Its