Replies

Who said not imminent? The ramifications of homsexual "marriage" are happening now, and will continue to play out across the country, in court and legislative battles, in business and in schools, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive. Problem now. Problem growing.

Let's not confuse the issue of same sex marriage with all of the other concerns associated with the homosexual issue. Same sex marriage bans are not threatened anywhere. If you are concerned about other types of same sex unions or relationships, schools, etc, then that is a different issue, not to be addressed even by the amendment.

When you say the ramifications are a long way out, but you don't define those ramifications, I wonder if the amendment isn't a bit premature. I have seen numerous definitions of the problems people see here in conjunction with their support for the amendment, but few would seem to agree on how those problems are going to be resolved by an amendment.

This is settled law at the federal level? Ha-ha. That's a pretty limp argument.

Well, first I obviously don't have your skills at debating. Second I never indicated it was settled, but merely not at risk, as every single decision supports a state's right to ban same sex marriage, and there is almost no chance a court challenge will succeed.

That's right. You don't have my debating skills.

You don't want the "gay marriage" issue "confused" with what kids are taught in classrooms, or what businesses or other groups will have to deal with.

Maybe what's going on in Canada will clue you in about the connections. Just one example: purging the language to make it gender neutral, in the wake of the new law of the land:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111810.html

"You don't define the ramifications."

And you say you oppose gay marriage? Are you joking? Why do you oppose it, if you need the ramifications spelled out? Do you really need it spelled out?

Okay: our society has a stake in protecting those institutions responsible for creating healthy, productive citizens.

Marriages between men and women provide the stable legal, social and moral basis on which to raise families and nurture children. No other arrangement has been shown to be better for raising children to be productive and successful members of society.

So. Society has a stake in promoting and supporting traditional marriage. Other arrangements do not merit the status we accord this institution. Because they don't and can't provide the same function. A society which ignores biologic and social reality, and claims or legislates that that other arrangements should be considered no differently than traditional marriage, is setting itself up for disaster.

Is that clear enough for you?