Replies

I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not.

By in and out, we are talking about what the legal definition of marriage should be? (Not what informal unions will be tolerated by law).

What's wrong with leaving it defined as one man and one woman? This is the traditional and sensible definition, based on the fact that their sexual union may result in children that need protection. To cause the legal definition to diverge from a very well established tradition and the states' own centuries-long definition should require an enormously sound reason. What is it?

Limiting marriage to the concept of procreation went out a long, long time ago. Few argue that one anymore. As to gay marriage, the plus of encouraging fealty and stability outweighs by a large margin the rather paranoid concern that attending it will be the flushing down the toilet traditional marriage units. That is a tendentious and unproven assertion that frankly doesn't make much sense. Granted, it has a bit more interest than the green eye shade fiscal strawman argument. In any event, we will know in due time, since gay marriage is being legalized now, here, there and everywhere.

By the way, you do know that Israel lets out of the closet gays into its military didn't you? I just thought I would share that little faclet with you. Notice, I didn't mention Europe, since someone would then assert that that was what "caused" their militaries to become so enervated. Why bother going there, when one can just adduce hyper macho Israel instead.