[Ernie.cal]

I was addressing the second portion of your message which seemed to indicate that rights should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis and not applied to all members of society equally.

However, I happen to agree with the sentiment that we should minimize government coercion in our lives.

Unfortunately, the problem is this: laws, by definition, are government coercion. There are laws you and I like and there will always be laws we don't like.

It seems to me that laws should seek to advance the greatest good for the greatest number and they should express our ideals. Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

[longtermmemmory]

Marriage is about children. That is more than enough sufficient reason.

Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex.

Marriage law is not about feelings or love.

The 11th DCA in upholding the rights of states to limit or prohibit homosexuals from adopting (there are six states with such restrictions) cited societies interest in how children are raise as sufficient reason to prohibit those in the homosexual lifestyle.

In marriage society rewards the institution not the individuals recreational orgasm.

[dr_pat]

...rights should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis ... It seems to me that laws should seek to advance the greatest good for the greatest number and they should express our ideals. Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

Rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... Not: marriage, recognition, insurance, employment, respect nor even the achievement of happiness.

Let's not slide the definition of "rights" around in the service of the demand to redefine "marriage".

So, again, I don't argue the "right" of same-sex couples to enter into a union. It isn't marriage. It won't be marriage even if you do succeed in passing a law to call it that.

A Merry atheist Christmas bump to you, and all who read my post.

[jwalsh07]

Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

Ernie, no matter how often you repeat a lie, it is still a lie, Josef Goebells not withstanding.

[usadave]

Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

Marriage isn't limited to just heterosexuals. Today, any individual who wants to get married can get married. But there are limitations on who an individual can marry. I can't marry my sister. I can't marry my neighbor's wife. A homosexual man can't marry another man. But that homosexual man can marry a woman, just as I can. Just because a homosexual man chooses not to marry a woman doesn't mean that he doesn't have equal rights when it comes to marriage.