Replies

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.

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)

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

The types of families marriage supports are one man, one woman, and children.

That is what you think should be the case,not historical reality. Polygamy is extremely common in human societies, and de facto polygamy has existed since the beginning of western civilization. That you think the modern "nuclear family" model is the "traditional" family just shows how little you know about how people lived in the past.The modern Western family is the exception to the rule, not the rule.

What I don't understand is, if two gay people want to get married, why does that offend you so much? How is it any skin off your nose?