Replies

So a same sex marriage devalues an opposite sex marriage. When two men get married in Vermont, then the value of any given heterosexual marriage is suddenly diminished? How exactly does one measure this quantity? Does the hetero pair love each other less? Are they more likely to get divorced? Less likely to have kids? By what objective measure do you make this claim?

The simple answer to your question is Yes. Same-sex "marriage" completely dismantles the Western legal tradition whereby marriage is accorded special respect and protection. You might not like it, but the very existence of marriage does indeed privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse. It is for this reason that marriage was constituted as an institution in the first place.

Same-sex intercourse can NEVER be a complete expression of the sex act. I don't care how seared your conscience is, the basic reality is "the parts just don't work that way." By calling a perversion of the natural order "marriage" one is removing marriage from it's special place and placing it on par with fetish sex.

Your attempt to assign "value" in the manner in which you are trying is fallacious. Value exists on many different fields.

Same-sex marriage is based, at its core, on two faulty premises. First, that marriage is nothing more than a package of benefits. The second, is that marriage is merely a legal contract that is the product of law.

Both premises are faulty. If one views marriage as nothing more than a benefit package, then what keeps you from keeping that package from being given to other individuals who want it? Why should a polygamous group be refused the same benefits that you want? Why should incestuous couples be forbidden access to the benefits? Because you said so? Because it's always been that way? You can't appeal to that claim as your second premise says that marriage is nothing more than a product of law, a contract. If so, why can't the other individuals enter into the same contract?

The fact is, marriage isn't just a benefits package, nor is it a contract. It is a fundamental societal institution without which there would neither be civilization or progress. Throughout human history, marriage was developed as an institution by which a man and woman were brought into a public sexual union, in which the rights are responsibilities between the spouses and the children that they produce as a result of their sexual union are enforced PUBLICLY.

By trying to transform a fundamental human institution into fetish sex and a contract, you remove it from the special place that it holds in our society.

Marriage isn't about you, it's about the future generations, generations which sodomites CAN NOT PRODUCE.

You do not have a right to call your fetish sex "marriage", because it is not, and can never be such. You do not have a right to initiate government force to remove marriage from the special place that it holds in society. You do not have the right to force me or my children to put our stamp of approval on your aberrant behavior.

Throughout human history, marriage was developed as an institution by which a man and woman were brought into a public sexual union, in which the rights are responsibilities between the spouses and the children that they produce as a result of their sexual union are enforced PUBLICLY.

Your ignorance of human history is noted. Historicall, marriage has been a property management system--the property in question pre-marriage being the assets of the woman's parents, as well as the woman herself, and post-marriage the property passing to any male heirs resulting from the union.

You do not have a right to call your fetish sex "marriage", because it is not, and can never be such. . . You do not have the right to force me or my children to put our stamp of approval on your aberrant behavior.

I note with interest that this is again about me and my aberrant behavior. You just can't discuss the topic without personalizing it, can you? Emotion is a weak position from which to argue.