Phil:

Haven't we already started such a thread? In either case, states are now struggling with this issue, and quite frankly I'm not sure which way to lean. I've got concerns re: the lack of access gay couples may end up having to each other's medical insurance, but then there is also the concern over both the traditional institution of the church and how gay marriage might further weaken the perception of that bond.

WC, of all the stuff the left tries to foist on us, gay marriage may be the thing with the least impact. The war on poverty has come at great cost and has done great harm in many cases (the same can be said for the war on drugs). But letting two gay people live as husband and wife�errr�I mean husband and husband is, I think, mostly offensive to our aesthetic sensibilities. In this day and age, with people doing what they are already doing, it amounts to little more than a piece of paper. Besides, once they lose victim status they're going to be on the defensive. They're going to have to justify why we should pay for their risky sexual behavior in terms of AIDS cases. They hang smokers, don't they? And they're going to have to then explain to me, and everyone else, just what those weird-ass Gay Pride parades are supposed to be for.

Here's an article by Stanley Kurtz, which gets stronger toward the middle and end, discussing a projected moral erosion were gay marriage to be legally sanctioned:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...000/002/938xpsxy.asp


A more recent article by Kurtz shows the plight of Scandanavia in its sanction of gay marriage:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...000/003/660zypwj.asp

And here is yet another Kurtz article, where he considers the importance of taboo as a sign of natural law; yet he sees the trade-off between increasing individual freedoms, which he favors on the whole, and the loss of unifying agreements re: how natural law compels us:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp


"Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to the ethos of monogamy from which the institution of marriage may never recover. Yet up to now, our society has been unable to face the real costs and consequences of the proposed change. That is partly because of an understandable sympathy for the gay-rights movement. But it also reflects the sheer inability of modern folk to grasp the operation, necessity � or even the existence � of the system of moral consensus and prohibition upon which society itself depends."

________________________________

And below he makes the argument that Federalism won't suffice in addressing this as a matter of legislation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...urtz200405200836.asp

Here's a respone by a gay activist to Kurtz' claim of a Scandanavian plight:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/

"There's a female impersonator who is sure all that glitters is gold, and she's buying the Hairway to Steven."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairway_to_Steven

butthole_surfers.com

quote:

Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to the ethos of monogamy from which the institution of marriage may never recover.

I think there are some very good reasons to define marriage as "one man and one woman." But in terms of undermining monogamy as it exists now, gay marriage would be a drop in the ocean compared to no-fault divorce laws, government entitlements that enable and encourage single parenthood, radical feminism, and a host of other cultural influences. I'm not saying that it's not important to plug holes in the dike as they emerge, but it seems rather silly to view gay marriage as either particularly significant, or as the last straw, when the damn has already burst. It seems to me that much of the resistance to gay marriage is more a symbolic act, a digging in of the heals, a locking of the barn after the horse has been stolen, even an act of denial of the larger problems, than anything particularly logical.

Brad:

I think that's Kurtz' main point. So if you have the time, read further what he's saying. However, he assigns significant practical value to the resistance, symbolic though it may be of other destructive, leftist concessions already made.

Here's an interesting look at gene-environment interface re: various issues, including the homosexual orientation:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/na...apers/satinover.html


"The fact that multiple genes and multiple environmental factors interact with each other in differing ways over time (i.e., developmentally) adds further to the complexity, as does the fact that repetition and habit (which may be eschewed, more readily early than late) reinforce and exaggerate the direction that development takes. Furthermore, traits that are affected by multiple genes have multiple different patterns of inheritance depending on how many and which of the relevant genes are inherited and which not. For these reasons (especially the last) the more sophisticated researchers speak not of "homosexuality" but of "homsexualities," for depending on the precise mix of environmental variables and genes, the pattern of behavior--as well as its enttrenchment and resistance to change--will be quite different.

Making the picture even more complex is the fact that homosexual behavior may emerge for an extended period of time and then disapper forever. Or, it may reapper once again later (or for the first time later). This important fact was statistically confirmed by the authors of Sex in America{9} (and of The Social Organization of Sexuality) who found that the majority of people who engaged in homosexual behavior did so transiently, predominantly when younger.

Long periods of homosexual behavior followed by a spontaneous change to exclusive heterosexualkity sugggest important developmental factors that affect broad sweeps of life. But homosexual behaviors may emerge and subside in short bursts as well, suggesting the effect of acute stress. (Those who have succcessfully emerged from homosexuality to live fully heterosexual lives can attest to this. They have learned that the reappearance of homosexual feelings, rather than being taken as marching orders, are merely symptomatic of other undealt with anxieties. When these are met squarely, the impulses subside{10})."

So if you have the time, read further what he's saying.

Yeah, that�s the pleasant problem, WC. I�ll try to get to some of that today or tonight.

From the Satinover quote: They have learned that the reappearance of homosexual feelings, rather than being taken as marching orders, are merely symptomatic of other undealt with anxieties.

Wow, I�ve never heard it put that well. Of course, we might admit that that�s just one possible way to interpret those feelings. You can bet your bottom dollar that many, if not most, gay advocates would say that those are natural gay feelings and need not be attributed to stress or any other painful psychological factor. In fact, a particularly clever gay advocate might point out (many married men might disagree) how we are drawn to heterosexual relationships in order to avoid the stress of loneliness.

While giving due deference to the fact that this is a Catholic site and the view that man and woman were specifically created or formed to be complimentary to each other and thus together, I see homosexuality as due to four major things:

1) The intensity of the male sexual drive causes even donkeys to run for cover
2) It is a primitive, but possibly quite effective, bonding technique among males, thus it is genetically selected for because there is a survival advantage (think Spartans).
3) Although the female body form has obvious sexual cues (roundedness, protruding breasts, etc.), the physiology of the male and female body types are not that different that you couldn�t expect some automatic sexual response crossover.
4) This refers back to point one, but the sexual drive, particularly in males, is so strong that you would almost expect it to be the first place that the effects of any kind of dysfunction or maladaptation would show up.

So in these rough points there�s plenty of cover for those who think gayness is completely natural and not a conscious choice, and for those who think gayness is abnormal. I really must admit that I have little instinctive or intuitive understanding of lesbianism so I don�t know if the above points make any sense in those terms. But I think it�s clear that male homosexuality and lesbianism are two quite different beasts. There ought to be some stark differences.

See http://shalomplace.com/ubb/ult...;f=2;t=000170#000000
- and http://shalomplace.com/ubb/ult...;f=2;t=000112#000009

We've already said a lot about this. I'll read what's on this thread and see if there's something else I want to add.

From Beyond Gay Marriage:

quote:

Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and "polyamory" (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female.

I agree. But only if the Supreme Court inappropriately gets involved because I don�t think polygamists and others will have the political muscle that gays have. Gays have this, to a large extent, because of a sympathetic media and because, culturally (particularly among the young), the feminization of men is becoming an accepted thing.

quote:

Can anyone doubt that greater public support will be forthcoming once gay marriage has become a reality?

Yes. I think most people will still see a difference between three people and two. With two people there�s still the possibility of some normalcy there. But with three people it just becomes plain weird, and I do understand that�s exactly what many think of gay relationships. And frankly, I think that�s kind of weird to, but lest weird than groups.

Like it or not, we�re moving into an area where it is the restrictions on sexuality that are going to be considered taboo. I think this is the natural and normal outcome of a society that is becoming more libertarian, less religious and character-oriented, manipulatively and pedantically legalistic, and overly rationalistic. Perhaps fueling this is that people more and more see their power and security as emanating from government, not from the associations we have with our direct neighbors, and in more and more cases this is true. Government has become a giant clearinghouse for goods and services and if you�re not at the feeding trough then you�re missing out. You can put a pretty ribbon on it and call it the pursuit of �equal rights�, but it�s often just the pursuit of equal extortion (extorting money from our neighbors to pay for us). Amplifying this problem is that we are now an almost maniacally image-oriented culture. The days of a Gary Cooperish quiet dignity are over. If one isn�t recognized as special by the government then you�re a nobody.

I think we can complain about being the victims of ACLU lawyers and liberal judges until the cows come home), but the trend will continue because, one, if George Bush can�t nominate an obviously originalist for the Supreme Court, then what chance is there of stemming the tide?. The best thing we can do is to suck it up and try to put a happy face on things by considering ourselves �tolerant� and equitable. And, two, in this society that is becoming more and more socialist and more and more top heavy with government, and all the deleterious effects that go with it, it will be hard to logically show, as in a defamation lawsuit, �damages�. How would one ever gauge whether society is going to hell in a handbasket? Opposition to gay marriages, and the other stuff that comes after it, will be diluted and weakened. Put it this way, if AIDS didn�t show the inherent problems of gayness and put us (even the media) off it, what would?

So that�s me right now. Puckering my, errr, lips in anticipation of an onslaught. But what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is of no interest to me (unless it�s two chicks�oh, forget I said that). But that�s not how this work. We all know we�re not really expected to just �tolerate� differences. We�re supposed to �celebrate� them and it usually takes a lot of cold, hard cash to do that. It means rather than asking someone to stop doing something that is costing the rest of us a lot of money (unsafe sex, and lots of it), we simply must right a blank check or else we are being �intolerant�. This is the underlying principle that is far more important to challenge than the idea of gay marriage. As Stanley Kurtz said, �But the media's reflexive labeling of doubts about gay marriage as homophobia has made it almost impossible to debate the social effects of this reform.�

Either we are able to talk about this stuff openly or we return to what is supposed to be the liberal�s worst nightmare: McCarthyism. Of course, their real objection to McCarthyism isn�t the technique, but who�s in control of it.

Phil and Brad:

Here's an article Phil posted from the first thread on this subject which I think is a nice summary of both Catholic moral considerations and possible societal repurcussions:

http://www.americamagazine.org...tID=3627&issueID=487


And let me just come out (much more dangerous these days for conservative heterosexuals!) and say it: I just have the lingering sense that homosexuality in most cases, or many, is not so purely genetically-driven. If, as in the previous post I made, the author is correct in assessing a more unstable sexuality among gays, and not because of social inequities, then sanctioning gay marriage not only weakens the social allegiance to pro-creation, but endorses a pathological tendency with PC rationalizations. I can only think of one gay I've known who really came across as secure in his sexual-orientation, to such a degree I didn't even know he was gay. Maybe he just didn't find me attractive, such as the attraction I might subtly acknowledge in a woman in the normal course of pheromonal encounter. But I just have difficulty separating homosexuality from the leftist diatribe about entitlements and self-perpetuated victimhood, like Brad's remonstration regarding Gay Pride Parades.

And it is so un-PC of us to even have this discussion; that by itself really discourages me about the effort to legalize same-sex marriages.

And most of the lesbians I've met seem not so drawn to the homosexual orientation as driven away from heterosexual experience from bitter marriages with men. It just seems, at times, the sanctioning of a kind of madness, as in "You're so hurt. Just do what you need to feel vindicated, and we'll not point-out what a bitch you are!"

Sorry, but it's just too precious at times.

And let me just come out (much more dangerous these days for conservative heterosexuals!) and say it: I just have the lingering sense that homosexuality in most cases, or many, is not so purely genetically-driven.

Oh hell no. I agree. Thinking back to one of those articles Phil linked to some time back in which it wasn�t really a question of gay or straight, it was a question of penetrator or penetree (is that a word?), it seems that most men have it in them to, as Seinfeld might say, "join the other team." If this is so then there are all sorts of reasons that one might choose a gay lifestyle. Laugh at some of these if you will, but I think they all have some merit:

+ Feminism has so radicalized and changed women that they have become harder to emotionally relate to
+ It's considered hip and daring
+ Such behavior fulfills the deep male urging to mate and mate a lot.
+ The high rate of divorce has made the whole married with children thing extremely risky, especially financially

I think the feminism angle shouldn't be underrated. Right now men (particularly boys) and masculinity are under assault. And I have to admit that most of the women I have met have been rather high strung. There's a general lack of gentle femininity, a sort of hard, driving edge that doesn't seem natural nor is it conducive to intimacy. Generally speaking there seems to be an artificial urge to act like the aggressor lest they fall back into the dreaded role of the compliant and subservient female. I don't know whether I heard this here or not, so forgive me if I repeat myself, but someone told me fairly recently that nowadays it is the girls who ask the guys out (at least in high school). A guy can be considered somewhat of a pervert if he makes the faux pas of asking a girl out. Frankly, in this situation I might say "eff it" and try to find a dose of real femininity and look for a male artist, interior decorator or something.

And most of the lesbians I've met seem not so drawn to the homosexual orientation as driven away from heterosexual experience from bitter marriages with men.

At least lesbianism I can sort of understand. Men can be pigs. Let's face it. And where else is a woman likely to find someone who is understanding, sensitive, considerate, and knows how all the plumbing works?

Yes. Fine. But then to turn the whole nurturing, wound-licking affair into a colossal fortress of social vitriol is where I lose my voyeristic admiration for the tenderness of female coupling.

Yes. Fine. But then to turn the whole nurturing, wound-licking affair into a colossal fortress of social vitriol is where I lose my voyeristic admiration for the tenderness of female coupling.

WC, I'm doing some back-study on this whole subject of homosexuality via some pagan-perspective writings of Camille Paglia. Not having studied much about art and ancient cultures, it's certainly interesting to compare and contrast pre-Christian ideas about sex with Judeo-Christian ones. I think what one learns is that there are some large themes involved, whether or not people know they are taking part in them. On the macro level, it's just weird sex. From a larger perspective one might see homosexuality as a refusal to give in to female control, both sexually and emotionally.

In this age of ever-consumptive government and cultural pressures (especially including radical feminism), I can't help but see the gay movement somewhat in the light of the canary in the coal mine. It is the first sign that something is wrong, although I don't think all (perhaps even most) homosexuality is strictly driven by dysfunction. But one thing I've sensed, and it is one reason I am talking here and not thalo.net (meaning no insult to anyone, just stating a perspective), is that the real oppression these days is not coming from the Judeo-Christian side of things, although surely the Puritan influence of Protestantism is as anal-retentive and ready for oppression as ever (I'll think Catholicism has its oppressive side as well). Instead, I see most oppression coming from the left. A woman can no longer be a woman. Her femininity, oddly, is now measured by how man-like she is in her behavior and power. We must not celebrate our own culture and history. We must dump on it. But we may rise to the very mountain tops the misogynist and often oppressive culture of Islam. We must not be so na�ve as to believe in God and religion, but at the same time everything from environmentalism to government is raised to the level of worship and religion. Cognitive dissonance reigns among those who most purport to be free of superstition, error, and ignorance. At every step of the way, from the ravings of Jesse Jackson to Al Gore, there is a current of anti-intellectualism that is the opposite from one of the left's supposed greatest triumphs, the Enlightenment. And they have brought an Orwellian sense of absurdity and oppression to the very language of the culture where "diversity" means "looking different buy thinking the same". Careers are made and broken, not by one's intellectual honesty, bravery, or just plain competency, but how willingly one goes along with a rabid and controlling elite. A New McCarthyism has risen that makes the old one seem downright gentle.

There are very, very few commentators of the likes of Camille Paglia. There are very few people who are taking the necessary swipes at modern day liberalism, political correctness and a host of other accesses that not only match the worst oppression of Judeo-Christianity, but are fundamentally oriented to surpass it. (And already have if one counts the tens of millions killed by Communism.) What the world on the left is full of are na�ve apologists who, rather than exposing the hypocrisy and excesses, help to further engrain them. These faux rebels include Bill Maher, John Stewart, and even most stand-comedians whose supposedly biting social commentary is barely a wet lick (excluding Chris Rock for the most part).

So I think to address this whole issue of homosexuality and gay marriage we need to recognize that these issues are the convergence of a host of different issues and factors. We can talk about the perversity or "yuckiness" of anal sex, and thus the evil of homosexuality, but if we do we will have papered over a host of other perspectives and issues (not the least of which is heterosexual anal sex).

I have no sympathy for the outright anti-intellectualism, ignorance, demagoguery and propensity toward misinformation of the gay movement. Most American have worked hard and sacrificed a lot to get what they have and to build this society. To raise children and maintain a stable, loving, monogamous marriage is no small thing. An honest look at pre- and post-Judeo-Christian times will show that, although perhaps we have puckered up too Puritanically because of some unimaginative and oppressive moral attitudes, we have gained much from the morality implicit in the Judeo-Christian ethic, especially regarding sexuality. We may dismiss it and expand beyond it, but we should do so with eyes wide open. You can not expect Mr. and Mrs. Straight American to pay for the excesses of a movement the pretends to be a misunderstood normalcy but often looks and acts more like a wild child intent on having all the freedoms of society while sharing none of its responsibilities.

Government in the end will not embrace same sex marriage. It will come down to the legalities. Same sex marriages could be used to subvert the tax code.

Gay marriage now that is something entirely different. This is an extension of Gay Pride Parades. Which is really not a celibration that people are gay but that all people are gay. Maybe not absolutely. Charlie Rose several months ago had on a gay activist. He made the claim that some study showed 60% of men have had a homosexual experience. This type of hard core gay activist truly believes that because he is "gay" everyone else must be "gay" too.

Many years ago the cartoon comic strip "For Better or For Worse" creator Lynn Johnston introduced a gay character in Lawrence the boyhood neighbor and friend of the Pattersons son Michael. In relation to the comic strip both characters I think were at the end of being in high school. Johnston ran a strip were Michael asked Lawrence well when did you know you were "gay". Lawrences response was that during last summer when he was away as a camp counselor he met an older boy that was in college and this older counselor helped him realize that he was "gay". I was not sure what Lynn Johnston was trying to express with this strip. To be "gay" all that is needed is on older gay person to assure you that it is okay? The fact that she used a summer camp setting as Lawrences coming out was a little bizarre as well as the circumstances. At least Lawrence was a counselor and not a camper. That would buy right into homosexuals are just sexual predators corrupting the youth.

Searching for a Better or for worse comic I came across this Dilbert strip. It sounds just like the type of radical feminist Brad is talking about.

Interesting typo above- "heterosexualkity" As I
attempt to remain in my chair while laughing this hard I thank you for THE descriptive word for my sexual neurosis. I'm sending that one to the AA newsletter!

I bend over backwards trying to understand this, and
I admire you guys for trying. I tried that book by Helminiak, but I can't twist the scripture that far.
I'll bend over backwards, but not the other way.

I have to admit that I do not understand, love everyone the best I can and ask for mercy and grace.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

p.s. If any gay person is reading this and can help my understanding, then please post a reply.

Same sex marriages could be used to subvert the tax code.

I'm not sure if that's technically possible, Rico, because the tax code is made to "subvert" society; that is, to effect society, provide incentives for how Washington thinks we should live and how society should organize itself. If one truly were to "subvert" the tax codes it would be to rob them of this power (perhaps with lower taxes or flat taxes). One incentive for gays to want marriage is to take advantage of existing tax breaks (reductions) that married couples get. Eff that. I'm single and likely to stay that way and it would be odd indeed for gay people (who are already getting at least part of what I'm not getting, if you know what I mean) to get friggin' reward for it with tax breaks while I get shafted and don't even get a kiss for it.

Yes, and I do understand what you mean by the tax code would be "subverted" in the traditional sense of the idea.

From the "Prenuptial Jitters" article:

quote:

But Kurtz's smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

I think it�s truly silly to oppose gay marriage on the idea that heterosexuals will run from it. Marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway. It used to be a necessary and needed institution, if only so that kids could be raised in a manner that does not look like they are characters from Lord of the Flies. But socialism and the various "safety" nets of entitlement programs have taken much of the sting out of being, frankly, an irresponsible dirt bag. Now I (and you) get to pay for the dalliances of others. It�s called compassion. So let�s get rid of this ridiculous idea that marriage needs to be maintained. At this point marriage really is just a flimsy piece of paper. At best it�s going to help divvy up the assets when dissolution comes, but it�s hardly a force anymore to keep people in marriage.

This is where conservatism and limited government come in. This is why they are important. We miss the whole point when we argue about whether nor not gays should be allowed to be married. At best it would give them a few tax breaks. A drop in the bucket of government expenditures, if that. No, our freedoms these days are less threatened by these mostly symbolic acts of leftism than it is by the size and scope of government.

When we ask government to be our nanny instead of simply protecting and maintaining a level playing field for the pursuit of happiness, then we have lost touch with the very principle upon which this country was founded. Frankly, it�s a bit of an incestuous relationship the government has with its taxpayers. Of course it wants to do everything it can to support families because families mean children and lots of children means growth�in government. Perhaps those in government don�t explicitly have this line of reasoning in mind, but you need to know that those in government (even Republicans) tend to think that the bigger government is, and the more money is has, the better. This is almost without exception.

True conservatives think differently, but for most Republicans and Democrats, the argument is over where the money goes, not really THAT the money is grabbed in the first place. And so we lose track of things. We lose track of the purpose of government. Yes, it�s inevitable that laws reflect our morality. Whoever the idiot was who first said "you can�t legislate morality" needs to be tarred and feathered. Of course you legislate morality. That�s the point of law, among other things. But we�re becoming WAY too fine grained with the morality we want to legislate. We ought to, in our philosophy of government, give a wide berth to what consenting adults choose to do, so long as no undue harm comes from it and nobody else has to pay for that behavior. (Got AIDS? Too bad. Use a condom next time.) And harm in terms of grabbing part of the treasury doesn�t count. We can�t blame gays or anyone else because we�ve gotten into the habit of handing out entitlements as if every day were Christmas. We need to address that problem head on and not blame others for our negligence.

I say that it�s about time that we get out of the business of trying to coerce behavior through taxes. I think it�s time we thought more about general philosophical principles. If gays want to marry, so what? What�s it to you or anyone else? If you want to get married as a heterosexual then nobody is stopping you. And the dissolution of marriages with children is so destructive to society (not to mention to the children) that saying that gay marriages will harm society (via the supposed destruction of marriage) is an extreme instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, we need to stop supporting and encouraging bad behavior via the entitlements we carelessly hand out. These entitlements need to be better targeted and some of the programs need to be overhauled, re-thought, or just outright cancelled. But marriage is a contract, not an entitlement. I see no good conservative reasons for denying gays marriage. I do, however, see good reasons for denying them the right to adopt children.

I thought we'd pretty well covered all the bases the the threads I cited above, but it seems there are a few new angles coming out.

This thread, cited by w.c. above, does make some good points. Brad, I'm not sure you read it, for it addresses some of the issues you're raising.

There do seem to be legitimate "slippery slope" concerns, as noted by Msgr. Sokolowski. And despite the fact that many marriages fail, I think the government still does have a legitimate role to play in supporting family life through legally recognizing marriages and providing tax relief and incentives to couples who raise children. I know that many gay couples do raise children, but it's just too great a stretch to say that a gay relationship is somehow ordered toward bringing children into the world and raising them. Nevertheless, parents in gay relationships are entitled to deductions for their children, as well as other breaks.

Re. the issue of gays not being able to visit their partners in hospitals, it seems to me some kind of partner contract could be drawn up to handle that and other problems.

Note that one can make all of the points I've made above without getting into the issue of the morality of homosexuality. That's the advantage of it, I believe.

Wow you guys snuck those post in there fast or better yet I am just that slow.

Brad what I meant was people who are not gay can get married just to subvert the tax code i.e. same sex marriages. I think allowing same sex marriage opens up this type of situation that government will have no control over. You could have business partners getting married to get around tax laws. College roommates could get married to share health care benefits.

I worded my first post as same sex marriage because that is how it has been worded by states and other countries who have implemented such marriages. I don't think they define the marriages as gay marriage or the law states that it legalizes marriage between two gay people. I think it is worded as legalizing same sex marriage.

If the federal government and state governments see same sex marriage as subverting their tax codes politicians will not suppport it in the long run. Remember legalizing same sex marriage has nothing to do with a church wedding. Legalizing same sex marriage allows people of the same sex to be given a marriage certificate by a justice of the peace by the courts.

What doesn't make sense for me is the motivation for gay marriage. It seems to me that gays wanting marriage is more about acceptance and not acceptance of others but an acceptance for themselves. Somehow marriage will make something complete for them. What has been presented for same sex marriage is all legal based like partners sharing health care insurance that one partner will get compensated in the event one dies. These arguements are really meaningless in support of same sex marriage because there are other avenues that can be taken other than marriage even the tax part to assure a partner has healthcare, life insurance etc. Why marriage? Legally same sex partners look really to fall under some sort of Civil Unions which is already and not contested in several states already.

What does marriage bring to the table that civil unions does not. The whole love part. The whole commitment part. Acceptance.

Marriage most importantly is about children. If same sex marriage became the norm there would be no children. That would be just awful.

Brad what I meant was people who are not gay can get married just to subvert the tax code i.e. same sex marriages. I think allowing same sex marriage opens up this type of situation that government will have no control over. You could have business partners getting married to get around tax laws. College roommates could get married to share health care benefits.

Oh yeah, there�s that too. Rico�(ummm, let me first adjust my tie and comb my hair a bit)�would you�err�Rico, would you be so inclined (and mind you, this is only for tax purposes�there will be no other touching of my assets)�to join me in the totally tax-code-subverting bond of matrimony? Or would that be "patrimony". Does one of us have to where white? Just how does this work.

Ahh, fuhgettaboutit.