Replies

One man and one woman marrying and producing children and forming a family unit is the pattern that the state has a compelling interest in preserving. The state does it by supporting the traditional institution of marriage. I ask again: what is the compelling reason to change this state of affairs?

If the state indeed has an interest in promoting family life, then it should support the extension of marriage to homosexuals in order to stabilize and legalize their relationships. And as I pointed out to you, many homosexuals do have children.(as do many unmarried heterosexuals.)

In my experience discussing this issue, anyone who rabidly opposes gay marriage virtually always does so for two reasons 1) unthinking prejudice (I hate homos ) and 2) traditional religious teaching( God hates homos)

Any purported public policy rationales are just a pretext for (1) or (2) or most often (1) and (2)

If the state indeed has an interest in promoting family life, then it should support the extension of marriage to homosexuals in order to stabilize and legalize their relationships.

I don't see how the second follows from the first. The types of families marriage supports are one man, one woman, and children.

Many homosexuals do have children.(as do many unmarried heterosexuals.)

Let me get this straight. The reason the state should extend the protection of marriage to homosexuals is to increase the ratio of nontraditional family structures as compared to traditional family structures?

Number one, that is not moving in a productive direction. Number two, we are discussing only why centuries-old tradition and law should be changed. I need an extremely good reason.

Any purported public policy rationales are just a pretext for (1) or (2) or most often (1) and (2)

Actually, I am uninterested in your anecdotal characterizations of who argues what.