Mozilla appointed long-time programmer and team member Brendan Eich as CEO in March. Today he stepped down.

While Eich has serious technical chops (he created JavaScript), his appointment was rather controversial thanks his donation of $1,000 to campaign in support of California Proposition 8 in 2008 (a measure to prohibit same-sex marriage in the state).

Many members of the development community, not to mention users of Mozilla’s Firefox web browser complained that Eich’s personal views were at odds with Mozilla’s mission of openness… and recently half the members of the group’s board stepped down in protest. Update: Or possibly for other reasons.

Now Eich himself has stepped down from his role as CEO. He hasn’t commented publicly on his decision to support Prop 8, but given the sheer amount of criticism that had been directed against Mozilla in recent days, the move feels kind of unsurprising.

firefox logo

Here’s a roundup of tech-related news from around the web.

You can keep up on the latest news by following Liliputing on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter.

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

94 replies on “Lilbits (4-03-2014): Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns”

  1. Typical liberal/leftist behavior…. They are so accepting of everyone, and sooooo open minded… Yet when someone disagrees with them, they need to be protested, shunned and bullied away! Fascists and nothing but fascists!

  2. Fighting intolerance with even more intolerance.. WOW the hypocracy of the Liberal/Left never ceases to amaze just wow.

  3. You really need to stop acting if this is a free speech issue. “Free speech” doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and expect it not to affect anything. Could he have just ranted about how much he hated everyone in the company and then expected to stay CEO? Of course not. Also, stop acting as if this could only happen to someone who had conservative views. If he had started talking about how much he liked Stalin and how he wanted to recreate the USSR in the United States, he also would have likely had to resign.

  4. The part I find fascinating is the contrast between the overwhelming response to the mozilla CEO who contributed to California’s Prop 8 versus the so far lack of response to a current mozilla employee who contributed to a potentially deliberately flawed encryption protocol. Weak encryption is not discriminatory in that it can impact everyone. Also internet users are not a protected group under USG law.

    While the former mozilla CEO could have potentially done a credible technical job leading mozilla, the trust was not there once his Prop 8 contributions were picked up on. Although clearly he may not have expected his contributions to be made public, and could have been a strong advocate of workplace inclusion independent of what his own private personal beliefs may have been. But once it did become public, it became an issue. In fact mozilla employees may have been able to argue that they did not feel they had a safe and inclusive work place, due to the environment created by their CEO’s past action (contributing to Prop 8 versus only voting on Prop 8) and the resulting workplace uncertainty/discussion/swirl/water cooler talk/distraction concerning this.

    You could also replace Prop 8 contribution with something like NRA contributions toward changing or opposing gun laws. While likely not as hot button of an issue, it could potentially impact a company and public trust in an organization that has a strong stance against workplace violence.

  5. I can’t believe some of the comments on here:
    He has the right to his opinion and so do Mozilla employees and stakeholders!
    He was not fired for his views, he stepped down because his personal, demonstrated values where perceived as at odds with the STATED CORE VALUES of Mozilla, which are “1. Inclusion and Diversity” – read it, it’s on their web site!
    While as a staff member, and even as the CTO, you might be able to work for an organization and not agree with their values, as a CEO you are expected to live the values of that organization as a role model and inspire others to do the same. By donating to Prop 8, he made a public statement and took action to take existing rights away from a minority of citizens – that is clearly not in line with driving “inclusion and diversity”!
    While he was appointed as the CEO, the employees and stakeholders CHOOSE to follow him – or not. He recognized that he had lost some of his employees and stakeholders, was damaging the organization and stepped down. I applaud him for that. He had a choice to declare that his views had evolved (as Obama and many others did), that he is supportive of equal rights, inclusion and diversity, and maybe he could have been successful. Or he can stick with his personal views – which appears to be his choice, face the consequences – and work for or lead an organization that shares his views! I’m sure there are plenty of offers from religious or conservative organizations in his mail box by now.
    This is like a guy leading a lung-cancer hospital – and donating money to the tobacco lobby. I’m sure his staff, patients and board would not be happy to find out…

    1. “Inclusion and diversity” apparently he doesn’t fit “inclusion and diversity”, which actually are just code terms for “get out if you don’t agree with us”. This double speak crap really gets tiresome.

      1. I hear Mozilla doesn’t hire KKK adherents in white robes either. Don’t forget to sob about that too brian!

      2. quite the opposite – Mozilla actually defines it very clearly. Because you apparently have already made up your mind, rather than actually READING it on their site, I’ll copy & paste it here for your convenience:
        Obviously, the mind is like a parachute – it only works when it is OPEN! You might want to try it sometime…

        Inclusion and Diversity

        The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. It doesn’t matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited to people of varied age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views.

        Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such diversity.

        Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla. When this is the case:

        (a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities.

        (b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.

        (c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.

  6. Conservatives … The world is going to continue to move forward, gays will have equal rights, weed will become legal, universal healthcare is here to stay. Things will never go back to the way they used to be, ever. Liberals have spent the last 2 decades completely dominating the modern consciousness, Republicans have had absolutely no mainstream relevance since the Reagan administration.

    Honestly just think about this, every major cultural group/industry you can think of (science/academia/news/tech/sports/Hollywood/etc) is liberal. Conservatives basically have guns & “god”, that’s pretty lousy way to build try & rebuild an empire.

    All things die … conservatism, Mozilla, Microsoft, even Apple has begun sliding downwards in relevance. Ever wonder why liberalism has always gotten stronger throughout all of history? Because it’s always progressed, it always adapts, there is no center rigidity. The only way to survive the world around you is to change with it. Facts have a liberal-bias, always have, always will. Denying reality – doesn’t change reality.

    1. Only societies which have children DO survive … a gay society won’t last more than a generation. That’s a hard fact. “universal healhcare is here to stay” ; well , as long as some are working hard and governments do steal in their pockets. For now it’s easy, but it won’t last forever. Speaking of myself i’ve literally stopped working hard; what for? working extra hours just for paying taxes? Really? No more.
      As for your “every cultural group academia/news/Hollywood is liberal” it reminds me of this quote from Thomas Sowell “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”.

      1. Thankfully our society includes many kinds of sexualities, including those that produce offspring. Insinuating that all relationships will be homosexual in the future is absurd.
        If you continue to stop working hard, you may find yourself unemployed and dependent on the very services you currently despise. I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor.

        1. I’m tired of this equality thing; i’ve observed that it generally ends as equal rights etc.. but not equal pain. So, yes, as you say “not all relationships will be homosexual” and you’ll be more than happy to rely on those. Meanwhile, you the liberals will have the same rigths without the same pain (i know because i’m father of three and i guess you surely don’t). Equality is’nt it ? So in the end gay’s will have the same rights but without any pain.
          And it’s the same for “universal health care” which krese above talks with so much emphasis; why am i entitled to work hard and have stress while others can have exactly the same and more without doing anything. But who works? me. So much for equality.
          I could talk about retirement. The same applies here.
          I’m now too old to flee my socialist country with all those equality ayatollahs, but two out my three are gone like literally hundreds of thousands.They don’t want to fall in slavery. They’ve worked hard to get their high degrees and want to work for themselves not for feeding countless parasites who just vote ‘right’.

          1. lol… you totally have that bitter old man thing down. Cheers.

      2. Your “we should discriminate against homosexuals because taxes” argument makes no sense. Give it up!

        1. That really would make no sense but that isn’t what he posted… He was just pointing out an analogy on sustainability…

          Point being the potential that if you change the meaning of marriage then it risks becoming an obsolete institution! Already, marriage is less important to people today than it was our grand parents…

          Like it used to be taboo to be a single parent, or even to get divorced, but now a alarming number of people wind up this way, and often have no extended family support, which is unfortunate with the weak economy and the lack of two incomes to better support the child/ren and time share responsibility in the child’s care…

          This doesn’t mean marriage would just stop but it does mean we could potentially be losing a lot of the under lining reasons why marriage was first established and the cultural indoctrination that taught generations why it should be important could disappear like many other old traditions we no longer practice anymore…

          While, legal alternatives to the rights of marriage could easily replace marriage for the masses and further reduce the reason to even bother with what would be then be an outdated notion…

          It is a worse case scenario but worse case scenarios can happen… only time will tell for sure…

  7. “and recently half the members of the group’s board stepped down in protest.”

    Notice how either Liliputing misreports and puts a false interpretation on events with the line above. or a Mozilla company spokesman just tells barefaced lies with a statement

    FOUR DAYS ago which is not mentioned in the item above —

    “”the three board members ended their terms last week for a variety of
    reasons,” adding “two had been planning to leave for some time, one
    since January and one explicitly at the end of the CEO search,
    regardless of the person selected.”

    This is reported in numerous places including Tech Week Europe

    QUOTE
    Mozilla Denies Board Member Mutiny Over Its CEO Choice

    The organisation says departure of three board members is a coincidence not related to the appointment of Brendan Eich

    On March 31, 2014 by Max Smolaks

    Mozilla has denied claims that half of its board of directors left because of the decision to install co-founder Brendan Eich as the next CEO.
    UNQUOTE

    1. Yes, indeed. Marriage equality is a win for true tolerance. Homophobes and racists should feel receive intense social pressure to drop their harmful ways.

      1. I certainly don’t have any problem with folks marrying whomever they want…(as long as they’re both from the same species). However, attacking and labeling someone as a homophobe and of course by default also a racist simply by a legal donation of their own money against something you are rightfully opposed to seems a bit intolerant. I think that “RK” below makes a much more credible argument and explanation for why Eich should and did step down without any name calling…

  8. Brad, Proposition 8 did not prohibit same-sex marriage. It prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex marriage. There is a big difference.

    1. Since you think the difference is so immense, would you care to elucidate and validate such a fantastic claim?

      1. English prohibits same sex marriage. No mere act of a legislature, plebiscite or nay, even the nine holy robed ones can rewrite the dictionary with a wave of their sceptre. And every other tongue spoken now and in the past says no. No human language has a word that encompasses M-M or F-F as mating units. M-F, M-F(n)? Yup, even if M-F(n) is currently illegal in most of the civilized world you can’t mount an argument that the word itself doesn’t apply. Somebody once put me some knowledge on (it is in Wikipedia) about one culture where M(n)-F really happened. And I’m sure somewhere M(n)-F(n) group marriages have happened, not just in Heinlein novels. But not same sex, since the word ‘marriage’ and the similar words in every other language is used to refer to a mating unit.

        So stand up and declare that words mean exactly what you say they mean… just expect the same sort of reaction as in Alice in Wonderland when ya do it. Oh, and watch out for zebra crossings.

        1. You should be aware that English is a language and not a legal entity, therefore it has no inherent power to assert dominance over itself. Any linguist would refute such a claim to your rigid definition of a word. The UU, UCC, and several other religious institutions sanctify same sex marriage, so there is religious basis. The constitution calls for no preference given to any religion on religious matters, so by refusing to accept the validity of these institutions the government is in fact denying marriage and there is no difference in its effects. QED

          1. Nobody in the Prop 8 fight was trying to outlaw the already widespread practice of legalizing civil unions. So yes it was basically a fight over language and a pure power play. Civil unions were more than enough for tolerance. But like all progressive misfits they speak of tolerance but aren’t ever willing to settle for that; the demands never stop after achieving acceptance and continue to acceptance and then to dominance. In short, they demand nothing less than for every knee to bend to them and to shout that they not don’t tolerate them, they accept them and wish they were as wise and enlightened as they. Go rewatch “South Park: Death Camp of Tolerance” to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

            It isn’t enough to tolerate diversity, they define ‘diversity’ as when everyone comes together and thinks exactly alike, in thought there is to be no difference tolerated. Thus the NewSpeak.

            This ain’t about religion (at leat not for me since I’m agnostic) it is about confronting this current battle in the war of America vs the Progressives. Which Firefox just got drug into the middle of and is likely to suffer from due to their intolerance.

          2. Civil unions were not “enough” and in the state of WI, those same people wrote a version of Prop 8 outlawing any thing similar, such as “civil unions” to be set up. So, no, it is not a fight over language or a pure power play for progressivism. It is a deliberate attempt to oppress a specific class of people and guarantee they are denied certain rights. You are grossly wrong in this case. Your process of domination is also reflected in Dominionism, the religious movement that is fueling Prop 8 and legislation like it. BTW, you fail to read as agnostic in your text. I call that as a bluff.

            I do not base my political opinion on cartoons. Do I watch them, sure… but it is art and reflects the opinions of the artists who create them. Southpark gets a whole lot of ideas wrong in my opinion. It is also satire, and it is possible that you failed to understand the scope of the joke you were watching. They often lampoon the viewer. Have you considered that possibility?

            I understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance is not adequate. Tolerance alone does not prevent oppression. However, I think it is tolerable to oppress the behavior of denying rights to people based on their sexuality.

            There is no war on America by the Progressives. America contains a public dispute between progressives and conservatives and even that is inadequate to describe what is happening. Conservatives don’t get to claim their side is the only nationalistic side. What a bush of BS.

  9. Stupid reason to resign. He was definitely specifically targeted by the so called “tolerant” group of people who are really some of the most intolerant people around.

    1. Well, he may have been excellent in terms of techinical and business skill and could have directed Mozilla into a better age (I have no idea what his skill level is) but the droves of people bashing him and Mozilla could have caused a sharp decrease in both their devloper and user bases. The power of the mob is very high.

      Hopefully, Mozilla hires a new CEO whose both good at this job and at hiding his pesonal life (I’m sure the next one will have secrets of his own as well).

      1. Too bad the response to intolerance is more intolerance. This whole thing is a sad mark in history for all sides.

    2. We should not tolerate those who want to systematically discriminate fellow citizens. Brendan Eich has the freedom to be a bigot but we have the freedom to call his bullshit.

      1. you have no idea as to why he gave the $1000. . . thus no idea what you are calling him on, and when did it become OK to trash someone for different beliefs? Guess I need to get my gay bashing bat out because they believe differently than me, and we should force them all out of their jobs?

        1. Are you kidding? The target of that donation is clear. Old time racists reacted just like you do now, when their unequal views and severely harmful activities. Let’s not kid ourselves, the US is in many regards still a homophobic country and that has severely harmful, sometimes lethal, effects in the lives of homosexual individuals. Google the it gets better project.

        2. BTW with your “we have no idea why” attitude, how do you know why Eich resigned? Maybe he realized how harmful the campaign he supported is and how bigoted and prejudiced his view had been and as a result felt so ashamed of himself that he felt that he couldn’t with good conscience keep that job.

      2. Except Eich didn’t do that. He had a political opinion. In point of fact, his opinion at the time was the same as the publicly (but everyone knew it to be a pose) stated position of President Obama. The other side is the ones calling for dissent to be a firing offense. Only a short step from there to reeducation camps.

        This insanity of ‘we only tolerate anyone who agrees with us’ has to stop.

        1. Except Eich didn’t merely “disagree” with me. Eich spent money trying to prevent me, personally, from ever being able to legally marry. Money may legally be speech now, but it is more than speech.

          We responded as is appropriate in a free market: ceased using his company’s products, and let him and other people know that we were doing so. The market spoke, and Mozilla listened.

          1. And that path leads to madness. Do you really want to start this fight? Remember that Eich’s side was the winning side. It actually won in CALIFORNIA (not in flyover country) and required the Supremes to misrule to strike it down. If the other side counter boycotts, and they now very much have to at least make the attempt, then Mozilla is likely to be toast. Because if they don’t, the gay mafia has that damned list of everyone who contributed to Prop 8 and after such a high profile ‘kill’ will absolutely run amok.

            People must be allowed to debate in the political arena without losing their livelihood over it. Eich didn’t fire people for having a difference of political opinon, YOU did. Eich didn’t discriminate against any Moz Corp employees for their sexual orientation or their political views; he is the only victim of discrimination and intolerance here.

            Oh, and for the record, you can never marry. English isn’t subject to the whims of nine insane justices. The word just doesn’t mean what you think it means, never has.

          2. An earlier version of the mindset John Morris expresses would say exactly the same about racial segregation and inequality before the law. Bigots will be bigots and will only listen to social pressure. Time to turn it up a notch!
            “gay mafia” oh please, was that the best you’ve got?
            ” English isn’t …” set in stone, language adapts to the social mores. The meaning of the term marriage has varied much over time. Do you accept that a black/white mixed civil union be called marriage, which it legally for a long time wasn’t and which some racists still claim it can’t be?

          3. Eich was not even fired. Quit repeating this lie. He stepped down because of free-market pressure put on by the community at large. This kind of market bullying is the libertarian ideal for enacting change. Welcome to 21st century digital protest, it’s not going to stop.

            Where does this idea that the English language is rigid and immutable come from? Where does the idea that the definitions of English words are up to certain religious institutions, but not others? The madness we are dealing with is a certain group of people pushing their religious morality onto non-believers. Evangelism through political oppression, whether its basis is race, gender, or sexuality is unethical and deserves to be fought against in both public and private sectors.

          4. You’re reaction isn’t as good as some others though. I’ve read and heard some people/organizations seeking to somehow force Eich to change his personal opinion (brainwashing?), get fired solely based on his opinion instead of his work performance and other unreasonable demands.

            His resignation makes sense in that reasonable people like you will stop using and/or contributing to Mozilla products if he stays. Which, to me, is different from being fired due to differing personal views (unless he allowed those views to affect the environment at Mozilla).

            In the end, I think his (forced) resignation is mainly due to the possible loss of users and developers and not directly because of his beliefs. If he was forced to quit directly because of this beliefs then then it’s a sad day. I don’t want people forced to resign solely due to personal views (ie. religion, political, lifestyle, etc.).

          5. You seem to be confusing being able to call it a marriage with being able to have the same legal rights but that’s not the case… Legally, civil unions laws can be crafted to provide the same legal rights and privileges as has traditionally been granted to legal marriages…

            So no, this isn’t really about legal rights but a debate about whether to allow a forced redefining of marriage and consequently whether to force everyone to accept that redefinition!

            Really, it was never just about being able to have the same rights but to force people to view it as the same, regardless of anyones personal beliefs, traditions, customs, or any actual differences in how it all applies!

            Besides, getting this guy to lose his job really accomplished nothing as it won’t really cause anyone to change their views that they’ve already established and only really effected one single person’s life… who even then probably won’t change his position and really only punishes him for having that position… never mind the slippery slope it opens up…

            Really, opinions and beliefs are never easy to change… Examples like prohibition show that trying to force people to change usually never works out very well!

            Which leads to a possible unintended consequence that, at worst, may have weakened your side’s position as this action causes your side to basically give up the moral high ground as this is the same
            as if the opposite side had forced someone who supported same sex
            marriage to lose their job!

            Even people who may otherwise agree with you can consider this crossing the line!

            So, you may initially think this is a victory for your side but it may actually turn out to be a pyrrhic victory at best after all is said and done…

          6. Boho! Poor racists and homophobes, being forced to accept that the term marriage equally applies to black/white mixed marriages and same sex marriages!

          7. Sorry but there’s no comparison, being gay/lesbian is not the same a race or ethnicity!

            And even many of the people who are all for extending the legal rights are against needing to redefine marriage in order to do it!

            Really, look at the polls of how people responded to accepting Civil Unions versus redefining Marriage!

            Even gay/lesbian don’t all agree doing it this way was ever a good idea! So, what you’re going to say? They’re homophobic of themselves because they don’t agree with you?

            Who’s the one with bias then?

            You’re basically confusing being able to treat someone as an equal with needing to not make any exceptions on how it works… Like a paraplegic has the right to be treated with the same respect as everyone else but they need to be accommodated for how they differ from a non-paraplegic… like climbing stairs… You can’t just look at them and say I see you as a equal and not put a bloody elevator or ramp their for them!

            There are reasons why legal marriage didn’t include same sex, polygamy, or other forms of marriage for so long… and pretending those reasons don’t exist is the real problem and is what is preventing any real progress because most people would actually approve granting the same basic rights!

          8. CyberGusa: “there’s no comparison…”

            Oh but there is. Both are examples of couples that have long been legally forbidden to marry. A lot of people used exactly the same weak definitional argument as you do against black/white mixed marriages back in the day. Your argument was as flawed then as it is now.

            Google the two words corvino philosophypress and you will find a link to a text that in detail answers every claim you’ve made here.

            “There are reasons why legal marriage didn’t include same sex … marriage for so long… and pretending those reasons don’t exist is …”

            Yes, the “reasons” are homophobia, prejudice and hatred. Sadly, those sentiments are still widespread. It takes long time to uproot them, as the long struggle to end slavery and thereafter to abolish legal discriminations against blacks make clear.

          9. No, there’s really no comparison… It’s your reasoning that’s flawed!

            The core reason for the establishment of marriage is to regulate and assign responsibility for the children produced!

            This is why the first marriages were like contracts that were reliant on children being produced in a given period of time or the marriage was automatically annulled! It wasn’t until Christianity that this started to change and allowed infertile couples to stay married…

            Really, though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it! For most of history marriage was just a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force… Marriage even predates the practice of having a family surnames…

            Through most of history it was usually the family that determined who got married and the couple really didn’t have a choice in the matter… while government involvement, with things like marriage licenses, didn’t really start until well into the 17th century… and that was only because the population was growing to the point that it needed to be better regulated and record keeping, etc.

            Despite how much the modern world has changed all this since, much of those same traditions and cultural heritage still apply… but many people don’t want the responsibility part of what it means to be married but just want the benefits are… marriage for love, etc.

            Thus the assumption that just because you want to live with someone and they make you happy that that is all it takes to justify getting married… totally ignoring all its history and core reasons why it was established in the first place!

            Sure, society will choose what to accept and what not to accept but it’s pure fallacy to try to make this out to be a civil rights issue when it’s really a societal and cultural debate where we have to decide why the institution of marriage even exists any more and thus what role, if any, it will play in our society…

          10. “The core reason for the establishment of marriage is to regulate and assign responsibility for the children produced!”

            First, not all heterosexual want nor can produce children. If child production is a requirement for marriage then we should legally forbid infertile different sex couples from marrying. Do you support outlawing marriage for infertiles? If you don’t then that shows that the child production requirement wasn’t valid even in your own view and you should stop talking about it.

            Second, many same sex couples (including same sex married couples) have children, either from a previous relation or from adoption. They care for their children very well, just as other pairs of parents do. So your talk about the “responsibility part” is completely besides the point in the topic under discussion. If you think that same sex married couples are less responsible then you are factually mistaken.

            “Sure, society will choose what to accept and what not to accept but it’s pure fallacy to try to make this out to be a civil rights issue when it’s really a societal and cultural debate where we have to decide why the institution of marriage even exists any more and thus what role, if any, it will play in our society…”

            Exactly the same was said by the people arguing against black/white mixed marriages! Exactly the same!

            Please google the two words corvino philosophypress and you will find a link to a text by John Corvino that in detail answers every claim you’ve made here. If you care about the topic you owe it to yourself to read that text.

          11. “First, not all heterosexual want nor can produce children.”

            Irrelevant because the potential is always there for most, and for those that can’t the laws are still made for the majority anyway and not the exceptions, and accidental pregnancies are by definition not by choice!

            The point of why government got involved in marriage isn’t just about procreation but the protection of the children that result… acting as a safety net for when it does happen!

            Really, most laws weren’t created because everyone wants laws but because people tend to abuse things and thus laws get made to regulate whatever got abused…

            “Exactly the same was said by the people arguing against black/white mixed marriages! Exactly the same!”

            First, racism doesn’t even apply here… Second, you can’t force people to change their beliefs!

            Everything from Prohibition to Totalitarian government should show beyond a doubt that never ends well for anyone!

            Third, you’re under the false belief that you need to change the institution of marriage for same sex couples to be treated as equals and that’s not really the case… Again, marriage can be amended… it doesn’t need to be changed!

            Fact is there are multiple types of marriages and they can co-exist!

            Fourth, you’re also ignoring the slippery slope of reducing the requirements of marriage to just people in love… Like people marrying immediate family members… pet lovers marrying their beloved pets (extreme but it has happened before in history)… age restrictions could be dropped… etc.

            Sure, it would be nice if we could live in a world that nothing else mattered but whether people loved each other but there is a hard reality we all have to deal with and we only ignore that reality at our peril…

          12. “Irrelevant because the potential is always there for most…”
            Not irrelevant if you believe that individuals should be judged for their individual actions and merits, not judged based on the average behaviour of some one among many descriptive sorting categories they may fit in.

            “… protection of the children … abuse things .. slippery sloop …”
            Oh, come off it! You’re stuck in prejudice man. Same sex couples are equally fit to responsibly care for children. Your emotional homophobia is making you buy into factual falsehoods.

            “… you can’t force people to change their beliefs! …”
            Yeah, the worst bigots will sit mulling over their homophobic ideas even in their old age at a retirement home one day. But most bigots are sensitive to social and economic pressure and will abandon their prejudice when they realize that the rest of society have progressed. It is way past time to turn up the pressure!

            The “institution of marriage” has never been set in stone and the conventions have varied over time and between countries. It changed when black/white mixed couples were permitted to marry. It has changed to end the segregation of same sex couples in many countries already and it works just fine. People quickly adapt their language. Dictionaries now accept same sex couples under definitions of marriage. You’re out of time man! The old segregationist thought all kinds of bad things would happen when segregated busses, lunch restaurants and restrooms was abolished.

            The slipperty slope you talk of is a creation of your own perverted fantasy and has no factual basis. Marriage equality exists in many countries already without any such slippery slope.

            Did you read the text I referenced? Go read it man. You have the courage to do so!

          13. “Not irrelevant if you believe that individuals should be judged for
            their individual actions and merits, not judged based on the average
            behaviour of some one among many descriptive sorting categories they may
            fit in.”

            You’re making a erroneous link, government… especially in a republic like ours, doesn’t make laws based on individuals but on patterns of behavior that effect others!

            So exceptions are irrelevant in this case as they don’t effect others and the reason for branches of government is to prevent the government from being judge, jury and executioner…

            Thus why individuals are judged by our peers!

            “Same sex couples are equally fit to responsibly care for children.”

            Never said they weren’t and there are reasons why we have adoptions laws separate from marriage laws… So no, you come off it… The slipper slope I’m talking about extends well beyond just same sex marriage and denying that is to your discredit!

            “Yeah, the worst bigots will sit mulling over their homophobic ideas even in their old age at a retirement home one day.”

            Assuming they’re bigots is bigotry on your part! Again, it isn’t discrimination if based on actual differences and like it or not there are actual differences!

            That reminds me of a democrat who voted for Obama but had the gall to disagree on the healthcare plan and so instantly got labeled a racist!

            Simple disgreeing is not grounds for calling someone a bigot, racist, etc.!

            Truth is traditional marriage has meaning beyond just how the couple feels about each other… It’s a institution formed to establish specific responsibilities and duty (not as a right)! If not for the romanticized modern image of marriage there wouldn’t even be a debate…

            Besides, acting like the thought police doesn’t put you on the moral high ground by any stretch of the imagination!

            “The “institution of marriage” has never been set in stone and the
            conventions have varied over time and between countries. It changed when
            black/white mixed couples were permitted to marry.”

            First, there’s is no comparison to racism! Marriage was never based on race but mating… It is what the word actually means!

            Second, sure, the institution of marriage has changed over the centuries but the core reasons never changed, the institution only got varying levels of abuse over the centuries… Like the Roman Empire pretty much allowed just about any form of marriage you could imagine and some your probably didn’t consider either and is a good model to look at worse case of what could happen to marriage…

            But all of that doesn’t change whether the core reasons still apply or not!

            You’re problem is you seen to think just because you don’t think these reasons apply anymore that they’re irrelevant but that’s premature at best since our society hasn’t really decided yet!

            Really, you’re just a step or two away from outright forcing people to believe what you want just to suite what you believe is right… some of the worst atrocities committed in history had the exact same mindset when they committed them too!

            Like the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

            Things like respect have to go both ways, otherwise you’re just acting as a dictator and it not longer matters if your were right or not!

          14. “doesn’t make laws based on individuals …”
            Ever heard of individual rights?

            “Marriage was never based on race”
            Simply untrue. Read up on the history of black and white couples being legally harassed, or worse, physically beaten or murdered simply for wanting to live their lives together in marriage. Then the legal construction of marriage was changed for the better. As it is again changing today. Back then racists who realized that they couldn’t be openly racist any longer instead pushed the BS “definition of marriage” objection. Exactly the kind of stunt you are now pulling.

            Every citizen of a country should in many central regards be considered fundamentally equal in the eye of the law. It would be unjust to have legal segregation where there is no good reason for it. For example, to have laws about blacks only and whites only seats on public buses. I hope you agree on that. This means that segregationists like you have to provide damn good reason if any segregation should be accepted. You fail to pass that test, just like the racists of old times did.

            Let us take it again, in steps:

            1. You now admit that same sex couples are equally fit to responsibly care for children.
            2. Same sex couples can also have close, caring, loving and friendly relationships that bring meaning and joy to their lives, like how different sex couples have. Both types of couples can interact with their neighbors, in civil society and both take part in economic life.

            These are the two major points of importance when it comes to marriage. Since both same sex and different sex couples score equally on points 1 and 2 it would be unjust segregation to make a legal segregation between them where none is warranted.

            To perform 1 and 2 well are the two responsibilities the institution of marriage is for. Since same sex couples can take those responsibilities equally well there is no, nada, zero, reason to legally segregate them.

            You have posted 5 or 6 posts here but haven’t come up with any reason for segregation. Still you cling to it! It looks more and more that you’re the victim of your own homophobic fears and emotions.

            “Really, you’re just a step or two away from outright forcing people to believe …”
            Poor you, being forced to live in a society without legal segregation! But cheer up buddy, remember that most of the racists who felt like you when the “whites only” seats disappeared got over their fear and animosity as time passed.

          15. I’m answering stuff from another thread below here too:

            “…Like a native American indian will not appreciate you treating them the same…”

            If
            a minority group wishes to distinguish themselves for cultural history
            reasons that group can itself make that call. You, on the other hand,
            want to preserve a harmful segregation forced onto a minority group that has for very long been severly oppressed legally and in social life.

            “means ignoring what’s different and that can lead to ignoring a person’s uniqueness, personal identity, etc.”
            Mumble mumble! If a same sex couple score point 1 and 2 from my previous post they are equal with other couples in the regards that matter for marriage. They’re still, after marriage, unique individuals that make up unique couple, because they still have their individual personalities and personal history and projects. Their mMarriage is no threat to their uniqueness or identity, nor anyone elses. The only ones threathened are the twisted emotions of the homophones who enjoy feeling superior to homosexuals and want homosexuals to be legally put in a special category.

          16. “Ever heard of individual rights?”

            Again, that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed! The government’s only real concern with marriage is how it effects society and is why they even bothered getting involved in the first place!

            “Simply untrue. Read up on the history of black and white couples being legally harassed, or worse”

            Sorry but you’re confusing how people abused marriage with what marriage was based on! So what I stated is true! The fact marriage isn’t based on race is ultimately what allowed the abuse to be ended!

            So stop trying to make this about race, you’re failing miserably because it’s obviously not true!

            “It would be unjust to have legal segregation where there is no good reason for it.”

            Agreed, but the problem is there’s a valid disagreement here on what justifies a valid reason… Even proponents for same sex marriage admit the core reasoning is because of the romanticized view of marriage has in their opinion already changed what marriage means… while the other side still views marriage as still influenced by its original intent…

            Mind, there are people who still do things like arranged marriages, etc. So western culture isn’t the only factor… and again, respect has to go both ways… how do you expect to convince people to respect your views if you automatically keep on assuming they’re bigots and racist for having different views?

            Disagreement doesn’t mean there’s no common ground, but polarizing the debate to an either for or against, with no compromise, can turn even allies into opponents!

          17. “The government’s only real concern with marriage is how it effects society …”

            Let us take it again, in steps:

            1. You now admit that same sex couples are equally fit to responsibly care for children.
            2. Same sex couples can also have close, caring, loving and friendly relationships that bring meaning and joy to their lives, like how different sex couples have. Both types of couples can interact with their neighbors, in civil society and both take part in economic life.

            Since both same and different sex couples score the same on 1 and 2 there will be no bad effects on society from marriage equality. On the contrary, whatever good things the supportive institution of marriage brings to those that make use of it will only become more abundant, as same sex couples previously legally barred from marriage now can marry. We have evidence in this matter from other countries that have already embraced marriage equality.

            Since you yourself believe that only effects on society are relevant to this topic and since there are no bad effects you should accept marriage equality.

            If you don’t agree with that then the burder of proof is on you. You have to give convincing evidence for exactly what bad effects you claim that marriage equality will bring. And that evidence would have to be extremely strong since you want to impose legal segregation of millions of your fellow citizens.

            So spell it out buddy, WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE “NEGATIVE EFFECTS” THAT CALL FOR SEGREGATION? And what is your empirical evidence of such negative effects?

            As long as you evade spelling that out you will come across as a run of the mill homophobe, driven by emotional fear.

            [re the analogy with racism] “Sorry but you’re confusing how people abused marriage with what marriage was based on!”

            It is a fact that most US states for a long time enforced laws against mixed marriages. Just like the US has enforced laws against same sex marriages. It is also a fact that such marriages in both cases was seen as wrong by the majority population. So both the law and social majority was against, in both cases. Still we changed, for the better, the law and the social sentiment to accept mixed marriages. And the institution of marriages survived that change. We now change it once more, to achieve marriage equality.

            If you have some other criteria of “based on” that does not relate to the actual laws or the actual social mores then speel out what that is and why it should matter.

          18. 1) It is possible for same sex couples to be equally fit and responsible for the care of children as any adopting couple but there are factors that give hetero couples some advantages over either same sex couples or other adopting parents…

            These include a biological link to the child, this provides a bloodline link that’s still important even in our modern society… especially, if the child gets sick and needs bone morrow or organ from a immediate family member! Love alone doesn’t replace this in a family!

            There’s the history of the family, adopted kids may fully assimilate into adopted family but not always and that leaves them without a family history, heritage, etc to help with their self identity and sense of where they fit in the world.

            Same sex couples typically can’t provide dual roll models to the children, it’s can sometimes be compensated for but again not always…

            Does any of this mean same sex couple parents shouldn’t be parents, no! But it doesn’t mean they’re exactly the same as hetero couples either.

            Whether it matters depends on the child, we’re all different, but people have fought for the traditional system because it works and history has shown it to be the most reliable to give the child the best chances. Nothing is perfect but we should always strive to give the children the best possible chances we can offer…

            2) Again, you’re only basing this on the romanticized view of marriage that modern society has made popular and not on the core tenants of marriage. The real problem is if we throw out the old reasons and focus on only whether people are happy with each and love each other then people can justify any form of union that fits that new definition, including many even you wouldn’t approve of beyond same sex couples!

            Part of the reasons people are being resistance is because of the slippery slope of defining marriage in such a vague and emotionally driven way… And the reality is, unless you truly allow any and all types of marriages that fits this new definition then the being equal argument never truly applies as there will always be someone left out!

            Now you’re totally focused on the one goal you want to get through but there are always unintended consequences!

            Again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions is not just a old saying but something that has been proven true time and time again.

            There are also many other things that also factor but that’s basically pointing out how the system can effect all possible people in all possible walks of life…

            We can go on and on in this discussion but the highlights have been given… Key things you’re ignoring is respect for others matters just as much as respect for the group you’re fighting for.. the fact the system in place was not decided upon overnight and despite abuses over the centuries it has stood the test of time and its core tenants have always forced the abuse to eventually be stopped…

            Again, nothing is perfect but some systems provide the best that can be done and there are worse systems if we decide to change things without truly thinking of the consequences beyond our immediate goals…

            The point on sustainability highlights one in the many ways things may ultimately turn out worse…

            It’s basically like causing a flood by fixing a leak… sometimes the cure is worse than the disease…

            And to be clear, I’m not against same sex couples getting the same basic rights and privileges but I don’t agree that the marriage needs to be redefined in order to get there, just amended…

            Besides, regardless of how the legal battles goes, in the end it will be society’s choice and they don’t always agree with the law!

          19. 1. “there are factors that give hetero couples some advantages over either same sex couples or other adopting parents…”

            I will check you factors one by one. For any factor we must ask a couple of questions:

            – is what is important about this factor exclusive to same sex couples? If not, it can’t be used to support marriage segregation against all same sex couples.
            – how important is this factor compared to other possible factors that could also be used to restrict who is allowed to marry? If the factor has some consequences but those consequences are much smaller compared to those of other factors then if those other factors are NOT used to restrict who can marry then the suggested factor shouldn’t be either.

            In general the factor of strong genetic relatedness has one big problem: It applies also to different sex couples who due to infertility or other reasons adopt children. You tried to dodge that problem earlier but there is really no way around it. Any law that wants to forbid people from something important should say exactly what it is about the individual that justifies him/her being forbidden to do what others are allowed. Such criteria must be applied equally to all individuals. So if “producing genetically related children” is made into a requirement for marriage then infertile different sex couples should be prohibited from marriage. If you don’t want that (as I hope you don’t) then you have no case against marriage equality either.

            A. “if the child gets sick and needs bone morrow or organ from a immediate family member …”

            Genetic relatedness sometimes is of help here. But first, this applies to infertile different sex couples. Second, most people do not need such medical procedures during their lifetime. The health risks of that factor must then be compared to other health risk factors. A large number of people have heritable genetic heightened predispositions for harmful disease, for example genetic markers that give a 10% higher cancer risk. If the magnitude of health risks are what really matters then such people, and any such case with a larger health risk than that of lower risk of having transplantable organs, should be legally forbidden to marry. Do you accept that? If not then you are not being consistent and your factor A argument falls flat. It then turns out to be a cover up for homophobic emotions.

            Keep in mind that we can already measure such markers today with inexpensive and reliable genetic tests, from birth.

            The big lesson for you here is that if you really are worried about certain medical risks then you should make legislation based on those risks directly and apply it consistently to all citizens with such risk factors. Doing tests in that way is then only way to treat individuals as individuals, and lump them together and submit them to statistical discrimination.

            B. “…adopted kids may fully assimilate into adopted family but not always…”
            Most adopted kids grow up to live healthy, productive and flourishing lives. If there is still some difference here you have the burden to prove it empirically, which you haven’t done. But, for arguments sake, if assume some small difference in life outcome is explained by the factor of being adopted. Then that factor applies equally to the many heterosexual couples who are infertile or for other reasons adopt children. If the factor should be used it should be used equally against such heterosexual couples, to forbid them from marrying or from adopting children altogether.

            C. “Same sex couples typically can’t provide dual roll models to the children…”
            Typically same sex couples have friends and relatives of different ages and sexes that provide a diverse and supportive social setting. There is no empirical evidence to claim that the development, health and wellbeing of children with same sex parents are any worse than that of different sex couples. Many have out of prejudice ASSUMED that life outcomes for the children MUST be worse but empirical research does not support that. Again, you here only spout the same old prejudiced beliefs that lack support in the actual empirical research done.

            D. “the traditional system … history has shown it to be the most reliable to give the child the best chances” … “stood the test of time”
            Since same sex couples have long been forbidden to marry, and have been oppressed in society, you cannot make historically comparative claims about them since there are no sufficiently large historical statistical groups to compare. However we have contemporary empirical research on the welfare of such adult couples and the welfare and life outcomes of their children and such studies give no reason to claim different sex parents better. In countries that have embraced marriage equality things are working out very well for children of same sex parents. Keep in mind that empirically void scare appeals to “tradition” was earlier used to keep banning black/white mixed marriages, in just the vague and emotional way you are now doing. It was a BS argument then, just as it is now. There is simply no empirical evidence that supports the argument.

            To sum up none of the factors you have mentioned give good reason to accept a system of exclusive legal segregation against millions of fellow citizens with homosexual orientation.

            The big lesson for you to learn is that any test that involves a specific factor should be applied consistently. A consistent application of the factors you mention would bar a larger number of different sex couples than same sex couples from marriage. One more problem with your suggestions is that if child welfare is really what you care about here there are other factors (not aligned with sexual orientation) that are much, much more important. For example the emotional stability of the parents. Since there are genetic markers for risks in terms of emotional stability a marriage regulation could include a test for that. Again, if you REALLY cared about child welfare that is what you should be focusing on. But since you’re so fixated on homosexual couples there must be something else driving your, like homophobic emotions.

            2. “… not on the core tenants of marriage … the old reasons … ”
            Mumble mumble! If you can’t describe these “old reasons” then there is nothing there.

            “… slippery slope of defining marriage in such a vague and emotionally driven way …”

            First, I have already answered your slippery slope BS. First, if there is a slippery slope then you should be able to provide empirical evidence for it. But you can’t since other countries with marriage equality and same sex families show no such slippery slope. You earlier hinted at the BS “animal-marriage” nonsense but there is no country on earth where marriage equality has led to “animal marriage”. “Animal marriage” seems to exists only in the perverted fantasies of homophobes.

            Second, your own talk of “old reasons” (that you can’t describe!) tops the vagueness chart buddy! I described a view of marriage equality that fits what more and more countries are accepting. Roughly, the goal of marriage is to support adult paired couples that
            1. are fit to responsibly care for children, and
            2. typically have long term, close, caring, friendly and loving relationships that bring deep meaning and joy to their live. The couple interacts with their neighbors and peers, in civil society and take part in economic life.

            These criteria and perfectly understandable and they same sex couples score as well on 1 and 2 as different sex couples. The criteria aim to describe really important things both in the lives of individual citizens and from the social and economic perspective of a society. Social reproduction is important and the marriage instituions helps adult couples (with same or different sex) achieve that goal. Deeply sharing your life with a long time partner and forming a family is among the most important, valuable and amazing things in many peoples lives. That valuable shared life should be celebrated and supported and marriage equality helps with that.

            What could be more important than that? “old reasons”, say what? What exactly is that? And why should anyone care about it? You simply have to come out of the mumble closet buddy and speak clearly.

            “I’m not against same sex couples getting the same basic rights …”
            Yes you are! Because if you were not you would contradict yourself. Look, you above argued that same sex couples should be forbidden to marry because such couples are worse parents (you thought) in terms of health outcomes for their children. Well, if (contrary to fact) that was true then you’d have a general case for preventing same sex couples from having children. But then it would make no sense at all for you to accept any legal “partnership” that paralells the legal content of marriage and only differ in name. Because if the practical legal content was the same (“same basic rights”) then both “partnership” and “marriage” for same sex couples should produce exactly the same consequences. If the consequences would (contrary to fact) be such that one of them should be banned then so should the other.

            “the road to hell is paved with…”
            …homophobes who want to delay progress with-if speculations lacking in empirical support.

          20. I missed a word: “and NOT lump them together”

            Two more things:

            Many female same sex couples opt for IVF and male same sex couples can have a child genetically linked to one of the fathers through a surrogacy procedure. In both cases we have a genetic relatedness.

            Today many children around the world live poor, parentless lives in institutions due to a shortage of adoptive parents. For each of those children a life with a loving, caring responsible parental couple would be much better compared to what child realistically will otherwise get. If you are against adoption you must explain to those children why you want them to keep living much worse lives than what theyt could otherwise get.

          21. No, I did not try to dodge anything… Problem is you can’t use the rare exception to discount the reasoning for a rule designed for the majority…

            And yes, the examples I gave are relevant..

            While you’re dodging the fact that we aren’t talking about just changing the rules for just same sex couples but any type of relationship that fits the criteria you’re basing the change on…

            I know you want to focus on only what effects your end goal but this is a topic that will effect everyone who lives in our society and the ramifications of that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored!

            Really, if we were to force everyone to conform to the same identification as you want to do to marriage then people couldn’t do things like identify where their families came from… Irish, African, Italian, etc would all have to identify themselves as only Americans for the same logic your using to justify why different forms of marriage should all be identified as the same thing…

            Being different isn’t a reason to want conformity, nor a reason by itself to force integration like we’re machines and all the exact same… There’s little difference from forced segregation and forced integration…

            The human race is more complicated to always assume only one way is the best and that’s the real heart of the matter that many on both sides are ignoring…

          22. First, do you agree with what I wrote at the end of the last post about that consistency should force you to either be against both legal marriage and partnership for same sex couples or drop the claims about negative effects. The point there is important so I want to get a very clear answer from you on that.

            “Problem is you can’t use the rare exception to discount the reasoning for a rule designed for the majority…”

            It is a rare exception that adoptive children will need organs transplanted from their adoptive parents. If rare exceptions should not be a consideration in arguments about the legal construction of marriage then your factor A argument about organ transplantability is, by your own reasoning, irrelevant and you should take it back. If rare exceptions should be a consideration then your factor A would, by your own reasoning, either be grounds to forbid both infertile different sex couples and same sex couples or neither. So how is it going to be, should “rare exceptions” count or not?

            “…this is a topic that will effect everyone who lives in our society …”

            Again, mumbles! If you now are thinking of some other candidate for “negative consequences” then show it! If you have no evidence then shouldn’t make the claim. Remember that countries that have marriage equality haven’t shown such negative effects.

            “people couldn’t do things like identify where their families came from… Irish, African, Italian, etc …”

            Sure they could. Just like people can and will continue identify themselves and homosexuals and heterosexuals. First, everyone is free to in their own private live culturally identify themselves whatever way they want. Second, if someone wants to set a subset of the population in a special legal category then a very good reason has to be provided for that. For all law cases I can spontaneously think of italian heritage is of no consequence and merits no special legal category or segregated “italian heritage only” laws. So for example if people of italian heritage (who do not fall into the category of having been for a long time an officially and severly oppressed minority in this country, unlike some other minority groups) demanded that the state should split marriage law into two legal concepts, “marriage where no one has italian identity” and “marriage where someone has italian identity” then that should not be accepted. The reason is simple: with regard to legal marriage it is of no sufficient societal consequence if someone in the couple has italian identity or not. In that case legal segregation is unwarranted. The same goes for french, german, polish, norweigian, (and so on) identity. The same goes for your wish for legal segregation. It wouldn’t even help if the italians (norweigians, germans, you) vaguely said that lack of segregation would have “bad effects”, without being able to provide evidence for that.

            Look, I’m sure you THINK or FEEL that there MUST be very bad consequences from marriage equality. But the question is: should you rely on that feeling, now that you after several attempts can’t back it up with empirical evidence of such negative consequences? I think not. Isn’t the best explanation that your emotions about homosexuals have lead you to a mistaken claim about negative consequences? There’s no failure in admitting that. People, including me, have been mistaken many times. But it is important to recognize when it happens.

          23. You’re assuming there isn’t consistency, because you want to ignore the differences!

            There are many flaws in what you’re trying to argue that you’re apparently blind too…

            1) While infertility is rare for hetero couples the opposite is true for same sex couples because they can’t naturally procreate and thus are effectively infertile.

            2) No one ever made the argument that adoption should be stopped, but that’s a separate issue from redefining marriage!

            The point about government involvement with marriage is because of the effects it has on society… Things like infertility don’t concern the government because only the creation of children effects society, not the lack thereof…

            Things like adoption are the safety net for when marriage fails, it can work and help those that need it but it’s not as ideal as having a mother and father unit raise the child… and no, while same sex couples can benefit from also being able to time share responsibilities and dual incomes, they can’t provide everything hetero couples can provide, like both a male and female role model for the child…

            3) While examples like needing to deal with cancer, etc are rare, needing to know one’s family medical history is not! Everything from risk of cancer, chances of getting diabetes, heretical abnormalities that may skip a generation, etc. are all information only the birth parents could provide.

            Also, the sense of lineage/bloodline are also things only the birth parents can provide and are not exceptions but the general rule…

            So again, you can debate the importance of many of these things but it remains that they are part of the factors dealing with what is being discuss and no, I’m not being contraindicative… you’re just not taking the time to see what I’m saying in proper perspective…

            Like the point that infertile couples are only the rare exceptions but the opposite is true for same sex couples because by their very nature they can’t naturally procreate..

            Sure, science can get around a lot of limitations but many of those options cost money and often brings in 3rd parties and don’t apply to all same couples equally…

            Like a lesbian couple can choose to be artificially impregnated and have at least one of the couple be the birth parent but a gay couple would have to adopt… while, regardless, artificial methods are not cheap and that leaves out a lot of poor couples from having that option and thus is not justification to ignore this factor! Never mind the added complexity of adding a 3rd party to the mix and how to deal with their potential parental rights or compensation…

            4) Another fallacy is trying to bring up adoption and trying to make it sound like you actually need marriage redefined in order to let same sex couples help with adoptions but that is totally untrue… Same sex couples can already adopt, since adoption is separate from marriage and is the safety net for society… and again, civil unions or similar solutions can grant all the same rights…

            5) The argument against civil unions are flawed because they often only look at how limited they are presented now but all they really need to do is amend the marriage laws to automatically both recognize civil unions and assign the same rights and privileges!

            Sure, there are some who are against any compromise but those are a minority and most people see no problems with same sex couples getting the same rights… the entirety of the debate is the forced redefining of marriage to force integration without any acknowledgment of differences… which as I already pointed out extend beyond just religion but to the history and heritage of all people.

            6) No, adopted children give up their family history… unless they track down their family after they grow up then

            7) You may want to ignore the many examples I’m giving but you really are arguing for forced integration and the treatment that diversity is bad but diversity is part of nature and one of the core principles of this country’s founding…

            Really, forced integration really is just as bad as forced segregation if you choose to ignore everything but just the reasons you would want either, which is pretty much what you’re doing…

            Denouncing everything that doesn’t agree with your point of view as just homophobia is just like calling someone who wants reduced government and less taxes a racist simply because they disagree with those who want bigger government and higher taxes…

            Things like heritage, family history and traditions, bloodlines/lineage, culture, etc all matter and are not mere inconveniences or old notions…

            Really, if you really believed that they were then everything those apply to you would have to be against as well…

            Like the right for people to still identify with their origins, so people couldn’t call themselves Irish, African, Italian, Russian, Korean, etc. Americans… they could only call themselves Americans because by your definition identifying their origins is immoral segregation!

            Same thing applied to religion would mean none could identify themselves as a separate religion…

            And of course this all goes under the core principle of the founding of the country in that all people of all cultures and beliefs could live here without needing to be assimilated and give up everything they were before!

            Really, this leads to the next point…

            8) Not all same sex couples want to redefine marriage because they are proud of who they are! They don’t want to be the same as hetero couples because they’re want to be accepted for who they are!

            They only want the right to live their life the way they want to!

            So stop try to over simplify what is really a complicated issue!

          24. “Another fallacy is trying to bring up adoption and trying to make it sound like you actually need marriage redefined in order to let same sex couples help with adoptions …”

            Hold up! You brought in adoption as a factor! You claimed marriage equality has bad “social consequences”. I replied that research from countries with marriage equality show no such bad consequences and asked you to give evidence. Then you got going on adoptions, “bloodlines”, and so on. I have replied to that. We can drop all talk of adoptions if you like. But then you have no objection to marriage equality bases on consequences related to adoptions.

            Due to this I need you to, before I reply to the rest, make more clear how your argument really is supposed to work. You now say you accept “civil unions” that give same sex couples “the same rights” including, I assume, rights to be tested against the general criteria for becoming an adoptive parent. That is something at least, there are many homophobes out there that would balk at all of that. But you also say that moving from such legal “civil unions” to legal “marriage” for same sex couples is wrong to do because that has negative “social consequences”.

            If a move from legal this to legal that has negative consequences there must be something that explains those negative consequences. Either the legal content is not the same after all and that has consequences. Then your “same rights” claim is false. But you keep insisting it is the “same rights”. Ok, the other possibility is then that people in society behave differently when the law is segregated (one legal construct for same sex couples, one for different sex couples) and that difference in behaviour has consequences.

            What different behaviour with what negative consequences do you then claim would occur? And what is your evidence for it?

            To work your argument must here fill in these blanks: a move from legal “civil unions” to “marriage” for same sex couples has the negative effect ___X___ because of behaviour difference ___Y__ and that negative effect is good reason to forbid such a move because ___Z__ .

            Let us look at what you write in light of this.

            “… adoption … can work … but it’s not as ideal as having a mother and father unit raise the child. …”

            First, if same sex “civil union” and “marriage” would both allow for adoption then presumably the same number of same sex couples would under both legal constructs seek to have children and would initiate IVF or surrogacy procedure (both with a genetic link to the parent) or initiate adoption. So the same number of children will be adopted. If adoption by same sex parent per se is the problem and if there are as many cases of adoption in both cases then it appears both cases would have the same consequences. But then you have no difference in negative consequences for your argument for legal segregation to work. If you still claim there is a difference in consequence here you need to give evidence for that. Do you have any?

            Second, if you care for the wellbeing of adoptive children you must ask what alternative life outcomes those children will have if they are not adopted by loving, caring same sex parents that pass the strict tests for adoptive parents. There are currently children in parentless institutions around the world because of a lack of adoptive parents. To spend life in such institutions is worse for the children than being adopted by a same or different sex couple from the US.

            I will reply to the specific claims you make about “bloodlines”, “role models”, and so on once we’ve dealt with the above.

            You repeatedly say “forced integration … is just as bad as forced segregation”.

            As a general claim that is absurd! When buses, cafés and so on were finally forbidden from practicing segregation with “whites only”/”blacks only” sections it was a case of “forced integration”. Forced because the change made those practices illegal, even though a lot of racists wanted to keep them. Was it “just as bad” to change that law as to keep it back then? Only racists think so. But if you sweepingly say “forced integration really is just as bad as forced segregation” then you commit yourself to that racist view. If you don’t want to end up there then you need to shift your view and explain why “forced integration” was right then but not today. Trying to that will take you back to the challenge for your “negative consequences” argument above.

            “so people couldn’t call themselves Irish, African, Italian …”
            I replied to this already. Here it is again. If you have some objection then spell it out.

            First, everyone is still free to in their own private live culturally identify themselves whatever way they want. Second, if someone wants to set a subset of the population in a special legal category then a very good reason has to be provided for that. For all law cases I can spontaneously think of italian heritage is of no consequence and merits no special legal category or segregated “italian heritage only” laws. So for example if people of italian heritage (who do not fall into the category of having been for a long time an officially and severly oppressed minority in this country, unlike some other minority groups) demanded that the state should split marriage law into two legal concepts, “marriage where no one has italian identity” and “marriage where someone has italian identity” then that should not be accepted. The reason is simple: with regard to legal marriage it is of no sufficient societal consequence if someone in the couple has italian identity or not. In that case legal segregation is unwarranted. The same goes for french, german, polish, norweigian, (and so on) identity. The same goes for your wish for legal segregation. It wouldn’t even help if the italians (norweigians, germans, you) vaguely said that lack of segregation would have “bad effects”, without being able to provide evidence for that.

          25. “Hold up! You brought in adoption as a factor!”

            No, I brought up adoption as a point of difference in how same sex couples differ and not as a point of what they could or could not do!… The point was they don’t have to have the responsibility of worrying about bringing unwanted children into the world like hetero couples do… for same sex couples it is always a conscious choice and they have to fill out all the paper work ahead of getting the kid, unlike Hetero couples who can do it spontaneously and thus have to worry about having a kid before they’re ready or otherwise can’t take care of… which should have been obvious when the origin of the reasons for creation of the institution of marriage was brought up and why the government got involved in the first place…

            Really, unless hetero couples always practice safe sex or are in some way infertile then pregnancy is always a risk! It’s also why infidelity isn’t much to worry about for same sex couples because cheating wouldn’t result in a pregnancy…

            What you’re apparently having a hard time understanding is marriage isn’t about being happy as far as the law is concerned, it’s about making sure the possible results of namely sex, doesn’t put undue burden on the state by producing unwanted children, who then have to be cared for if the parents can’t or refuse to… The original point about marriage was setting responsibility!

            Again, the only reason the government ever got involved was because of how marriage effected society and it only effects society through procreation! Otherwise people can do what they want and it wouldn’t effect the government or society…

            A point about rights in general is they’re not absolute… all rights have checks and balances… freedom of speech does not mean you can scream fire in a crowded theater, freedom to assemble and protest doesn’t mean you can riot, right to be happy doesn’t mean you can do it at the cost of another person, etc.

            Marriage has always been treated more as a privilege than a right anyway, you have to meet all sorts of criteria from age of consent (because young parents often can’t support their kids) to you can’t be close relatives like first cousins (which obviously is because of the risk of mutations from inbreeding, which again links marriage to procreation and how it can put a burden on society and government), Polygamy is outlawed in most western countries also because it can result in too many children that society would then have to take care of, etc.

            Hopefully, you can now understand that this is really a complicated issue that you can’t put into over simplified ways as you have apparently been doing and simply dismiss everything that doesn’t fit your preferred point of view…

            Marriage may have been romanticized in modern times but the reality of marriage is still linked heavily to the core reasons why it was first established!

            And you still haven’t addressed the simple fact not all same sex couples even want what you want! People have the right to be proud of who they are, how they live, and where they came from!

            And no, my comparison to people calling themselves by their country of origin instead of simply Americans was just to highlight that people don’t have to give up their identity and uniqueness to be equal and that those people want to remember where they’re from!

            Ditto with many same sex couples who are proud of who they are and don’t want to hide it! Just like gay pride day, if you really want acceptance they you have to make people accept them for who they are!

            You keep on wanting to associate this with segregation and bias of some sort or another but you seem to be ignoring that you’re basically doing reverse bias by dismissing even the people you want to help in what they really want and assuming there is only one way to get what you want!

            Summary, same sex couples are different and many of them are happy about it… contrary to your belief being different isn’t a bad thing… we’re all different in multiple ways… doesn’t mean we can’t view each other as equals!

            Whether that difference is extreme, like a paraplegic, or minor like country of origin… what matters is whether or not we can still treat each other as equals… but we can’t do that if we try to merge everyone into one single blob of society as someone always loses out that way!

            Really, this country was founded on the principles of tolerance and acceptance of diversity, regardless of how many times we stumbled in that regard it is still the ideal that sets us apart from many other countries… we don’t have to be the exact same to be happy…

            So the only thing we should really be fighting for is just the freedom to live our lives as we want and to enjoy the same basic rights, regardless of what we call them, but still respect our differences both great and small!

          26. You now say that legal marriage is for “making sure the possible results of namely sex, doesn’t put undue burden on the state by producing unwanted children”.

            That is much more narrow than how most people view the function of marriage. The legal institution of marriage in practice serves several different important social functions. It is about supporting the wellbeing of children within the family and about supporting the relationship and wellbeing of the two adults as well as the couples social and economic relations to the rest of society. But I have no problem saying that a part of it is encouraging responsibility for not having children that the family for one reason or other later can’t care for. You are right that responsibility is important to marriage but you misunderstand the scope of that responsibility.

            Anyway, this still gives you no evidence for “negative consequences” that can support legal segregation against same sex couples.

            First, since there are these additional functions legal marriage is useful also for same sex couples in supporting their mutual relation.

            Second, even if these additional functions were not these (contrary to fact but for sake of argument) and the only function was “don’t burden the state” then legal marriage would STILL be multiply useful to same sex couples. First, our talk of same/different sex couples and homosexual/heterosexual has so far been simplified, since many people identify as bisexual and are in same sex relation at one time and in different sex relation at another time in their life. Those persons run a risk of producing children that are later not cared for. They then need the support of the marriage institution. Second, even strictly homosexual same sex couples who use IVF or surrogacy or adoption at one point in time can later on, in some cases due to irresponsible behaviour or other troubles within their relation, end up in a situation so bad that the care for their children becomes the job of the state. The responsibility supporting features of the institution of marriage can help those couples lower that risk.

            Third, remember that your argument has to show “negative consequences”. Even if (again contrary to fact, only for sake of argument) marriage for same sex couples would bring no benefit from the POV of the state that still does not show “negative consequences”. To exemplify, if same sex couple Jane and Sue can legally marry how does that negatively affect some other different sex couple Tom and Mary in a way that puts “undue burden on the state”?

            “… you still haven’t addressed the simple fact not all same sex couples even want what you want…”

            I hereby adress that fact: Not all different sex couples want to marry or want even to be able to marry either. So what? Also in fact most same sex couples want to have the equal right to marry if they choose to. Some who hesitate to answer yes to that also do so only for strategic reasons, out of fear of backlash from the many homophobes in this country and the political power the homophobes still have. In countries that have embraced marriage equality there is strong support for it from same sex couples and from people with homosexual orientation.

            If you really sincerely worry that some same sex couples would be badly off if they’re “forced” to have the perfectly optional possibility to choose to engage in marriage on the same terms as other citizens then there is a straightforward solution: implement two legal constructs “marriage” and “civil union” that are equally open to both same sex and different sex couples. Every couple then have exactly the same right to pick which one they want to use. I think most same sex couples would pick “marriage”.

            “… a complicated issue …”
            Homophobes get into complications when they try to dress up their emotional fears as big sounding claims about “negative consequences” that they, when asked, can’t back up with facts. Nothing new with that. That is how the psychological meme called homophobia operates when it no longer can channel itself into overt oppression of homosexuals.

          27. “Anyway, this still gives you no evidence for “negative consequences”
            that can support legal segregation against same sex couples.”

            You say no negative consequences but the fact is this does illustrate a negative consequence as changing the definition of marriage means changing what it stands for!

            And no, overlap does not justify forcing a redefinition to merge two types of marriages together under the same title! Especially, as that can be covered without any redefinition!

            “First, our talk of same/different sex couples and
            homosexual/heterosexual has so far been simplified, since many people
            identify as bisexual and are in same sex relation at one time and in
            different sex relation at another time in their life. Those persons run a
            risk of producing children that are later not cared for.”

            Contrary, this only exemplifies why same sex couples can be even more different as the relationship dynamics are different!

            While also showing how easily such relations can lead to forms of unions other than just same sex or hetero couplings!

            Thus the point on slippery slope of forcing a change!

            “Homophobes get into complications when they try to dress up their
            emotional fears as big sounding claims about “negative consequences”
            that they, when asked, can’t back up with facts. Nothing new with that.”

            There is such a thing as anti homophobe where someone like you see everything that doesn’t agree with what you want as having to be against your side!

            The fact even not all same sex couples share your views and in fact would fight what you are striving for should tell you something but apparently you’re just too biased to accept that it really is more complicated and you’re disrespecting far more than what you think you are!

          28. “… this does illustrate a negative consequence as changing the definition of marriage means changing what it stands for!”

            There is a difference between consequences in terms of practical health and life outcomes for children and merely linguistic modification in the semantic content of words.

            You previously talked of practical negative consequences. I’m glad that you now abandon that since you have not been able to show any evidence for it.

            So you are left with only a mere claim about semantic modification of words. I will reply to that then. Mere linguistic semantic changes happen all the time, thousands of words get partly new meanings every year. Such changes are in themselves neutral. Such semantic changes are a problem only if there is empirical evidence that the change has negative practical effect, for example in terms of child health outcomes. Which you have failed to prove in this case. On the other hand a change to marriage equality has good effects in peoples lives: more couples can get the important support that marriage brings and one more instance of legal segregation between people is removed. We now from the history of oppression (even extermination) of minority groups that making the group legally segregated is often an important prerequisite in order to later, in worst case, proceed with more violent oppression of that group.

            One example of change in the everyday usage meaning of a concept has already been discussed: when black/white mixed couples still were legally forbidden to marry people didn’t use the term marriage for such couples. Instead they were called the very negatively loaded term “miscegenation”. Then the law and language changed and “marriage” expanded to include mixed couples. Just like it today is changing to include same sex couples. The institution of marriage equality has good effects were it is implemented.

            “… overlap does not justify … to merge two types of marriages together …”

            Sure it does. You are even yourself calling it “two types of marriages”! Well if since they are both marriages, they should be joined together into the legal category “marriage”. Pretty simple! Besides, you yourself claim that the function of marriage is to prevent burdening the state with care for children the parents can’t care for. Well if an update to the details of the law leads to higher degree of achievement of that important social goal then that update should be done. In general if your goal is X then as circumstances change you modify the policy so that X is achieved as much as possible. That is a pretty basic effectiveness rule!

            “Contrary, this [bisexual couples] only exemplifies why same sex couples can be even more different as the relationship dynamics are different!”

            BS! First, there are more differences in “dynamics” between cases within the large group of all heterosexual couples than there are between the average cases of heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual couples. Second, there are fundamental similarities in the central aspect that you yourself claim matters here: all these couples run some risk of burdening the state with care for children. Well, then all of them should get the support from the legal institution of marriage. Your attempts to paint differences ignores the big fundamental similaries in the lives of such couples: human persons dealing with the many challenges of friendship, growing older together, sharing projects and life goals, sharing responsibility for care of their children, supporting one another in grief over relatives and perhaps children that pass, perhaps moving for another job, perhaps over time finding it hard to connect as they used to and trying to find ways to renew the emotional bonds between them. All these things are part of the shared human experience. Humans have deep psychological similarities in basic needs and vulnerabilities and the sexual intercourse part is for most not the most important thing in everyday life. Instead the small stuff in life has big importance – agreeing on chores, sharing humour, being kind to one another and a million other small things are often what shape how long a relation lasts and when and how it can be mended in times of crises. All these forms of experiences are shared by humanity and not exclusive to this or that subgroup. Such things will play a big role if a family will or will not break apart and if, worst case, the state will have to step in to care for children. The institution of marriage function to, in the background, support people through such challenges. That help is of use to couples regardless if they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

            Again: if you REALLY care that the state shouldn’t be burdened and that children should be supported then you should accept the policy that in fact will achieve those goals: marriage equality. If you don’t well then your behaviour fits that of someone snaired by his homophobic emotions.

          29. “There is a difference between consequences in terms of practical health
            and life outcomes for children and merely linguistic modification in the
            semantic content of words.”

            Yes, but we’re not talking about mere linguistic modification but a fundamental change!

            Really, all the BS aside the core of this debate is you want supposed equality for same sex but at the cost of the identity and tradition of traditional marriage and to the point of ignoring even the same sex couples who don’t want that either!

            Like a true tyrant you think only your way is the right way! Really, that’s what you’re telling me with each response… You don’t care if same sex couples want to be proud of who they are and will prevent them from forming their own form of marriage.

            You ignore all the examples given showing how that thinking is wrong, forcing people to give up their self identity, to not be proud of who they are is just as bad as forcing people to ignore their similarities and forcing separation without any real justification… But you simply can’t understand this apparently!

            Also, you apparently don’t care that the already weakened institution of marriage is likely to only get weaker by redefining it because the reasons for its existence would be reduced!

            Really, the decline has already been happening for decades with barely half of American adults were married in 2010, compared to 72% back in 1962… Simply because people started to care more about just being happy instead of the core tenants of marriage for the responsibility and duty it has traditionally involved…

            When people forget the core reasons for marriage, they get married for the wrong reasons and marriages are less likely to succeed… Again, like you yourself pointed out most people already don’t think of marriage in traditional terms and the romanticized view has already started to dominate… meaning a further redefining of marriage will only further separate the concept of marriage from the core principles of its roots…

            All this despite Marriage was not a creation of the law to begin with! The government only got involved when it started having an invested interest in the results of marriage… yet now we’re at the point that the law is starting to be used to dictate when it was only ever meant to regulate…

            Even ignoring everything I’ve pointed out, you also ignore that true equality is accepting people for who they are and you’re failing this by ignoring that same sex couples also want to be accepted for who they are and not just identify themselves in the same club as other groups.

            I can only imagine it’s because in your mind you can’t differentiate between segregation and diversity… The fact you keep on obsessing on segregation shows this and apparently blinds you to the value of diversity…

            Ignoring the examples like forcing all Americans to only identify themselves as Americans, or anything similar, completely went over your head because of this and thus shows you are very biased and will only want to view this issue the way you want to instead of how it really is!

            Thus you dismiss any otherwise valid reason to preserve the definition of marriage because you don’t care about anything else and view anything else as either unimportant or somehow discriminatory even if it’s nothing of the sort!

            People have the right to be who they are and not be forced to hide it and people don’t need to be like other people to be equals!

            Contrary to what you may believe, our differences matter too… They’re part of who we are and what makes us all unique and special in our own ways, and no, those differences don’t automatically mean reasons to separate us… you only confuse abuse as the only motivation and are blind to how diversity can also unite us…

            Now, you have asked me to read the words from someone who supports your view. So I’d ask the same of you and look up Paul Nathanson, a scholar who is also gay, who co-authored with Maggie Gallagher, Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage in 2003 which attempts to dissect and tear down many marriage equality positions.

            Here’s a quote from Paul Nathanson…

            “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival … every human society has had to promote it actively … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

            and some key points in the book…

            Claim 6: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones: This comparison is false, because it involves the best of one scenario with the worst of another. A legitimate comparison would compare either the best of both or the worst of both. Once again, we suggest that the best of marriage (providing at least one parent or other adult of each sex) is better than the best of gay marriage (which provides two parents of the same sex and none of the other one).

            Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage:

            Actually, it is not. This argument is based on a reductive analogy between racism and heterosexism. Most people today would agree that the state should have no right to prevent interracial marriage, and some now argue for the same reason that it should have no right to prevent gay marriage. Both racism and heterosexism are forms of prejudice. Both are due to a combination of ignorance and malice. Both are evil. But the analogy is seriously flawed, because it assumes that all those who oppose gay marriage, like all those who oppose interracial marriage, are bigots. Some are, but others are not.

            Marriage between people of different races was indeed banned because of racism. But that was only one example of a larger phenomenon. We refer to endogamy, marriage only with those from inside the community. And endogamy is not always caused by racism. Sometimes, for instance, it is caused by religion — that is, by the urge to perpetuate a religious culture. These societies ban inter-religious marriage but usually accept marriage to converts, regardless of their racial or ethnic origins.

            In any case, endogamy is a cultural variable. Many societies practice exogamy, after all, marriage only with those from outside the community. Endogamy cannot be considered a universal feature of marriage and should not, therefore, be required by law in a diverse society. Marriage between men and women really is a universal feature, on the other hand, both historically and anthropologically. And for a good reason: bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic reasons. The prejudice of some people notwithstanding, in short, there can be a morally legitimate reason for maintaining the heterosexuality of marriage.

            Besides, how many advocates of gay marriage would argue for polygamous marriage as well? Some would, no doubt, but not many. Although we do not advocate polygamy, we also do not see anything inherently wrong with it. Because a good case could be made for it, following precisely the same logic as that of the case made for gay marriage (see claim 17), it would be dishonest for advocates of the latter to trivialize it due to political expediency.

            Claim13: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic: This argument amounts to verbal terrorism. By “homophobic” is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. So much for the possibility of rational debate. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favor of gay marriage.)

            Moreover, this is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself…

            Claim 18: Winning the struggle for gay marriage is important for the cause of gay liberation:

            It might be, or it might not be. Any victory heightens group morale, it is true, but this victory could be very problematic in at least two ways.

            For one thing, not all gay people want to marry, even though most would want the opportunity to choose. But some gay people, like some feminists, see marriage as an inherently oppressive patriarchal institution and want no part of it. At best, they say, it would confine gay people by encouraging their outward conformity to alien standards. At worst, it would discourage gay people from exploring and expressing their own distinctive sexual models and from living together unencumbered by legal obligations.

            Now doesn’t any of that sound familiar?

            So no, what you want isn’t true equality, it’s the forced semblance that only tries to hide our differences instead of allowing people to accept and embrace our differences!

            Only when we can accept each other for who we are can we all be truly equal and hiding our differences will never lead to it!

          30. “not … mere linguistic modification … fundamental change … cost of the identity and tradition”

            Ok we can set aside all talk of mere word change then. So you again need evidence of practical “negative consequences” for real persons. I have pointed out your lack of evidence for your earlier such claims. But let us look at your new attempt. You now talk of consequences for “identity” and “tradition”. A tradition is a cultural construct and cannot itself feel harm. So real negative consequences must be about negative effects in the lives of persons must be shown. You haven’t been able to do that.

            First, the fact that some feel that removal of legal segregation affects their “tradition” or “identity” does not itself prove that the change is wrong or even negative. After all racists saw segregation of blacks and slavery as important “traditions” and they talked about threat to “identity” if blacks were to gain equal rights. Opponents to the vote for women complained that it was against “tradition” to let females into politics. Many other really bad and oppressive things have been done in the name of “tradition” and “identity”. So you need to go further and give evidence of big practical consequences that are very negative. You haven’t.

            Second, you talk much about “identity” loss but in practice the effect appears to be very minor for you. You can keep doing the many things you are doing in your life as usual, work, time with your family and so on. You can still marry whomever you want and fraternise without being forced to invite any scary homosexuals to your wedding. What you cannot do is point your finger to same sex couples and say “you people cannot get married, it is the law!”. But that is a change for the better.

            Any change in feelings of identity for some people would also be very small compared to the massive oppression that same sex couples have had to endure in this country: systematic violent attacks, being practically barred from educations, bullying for years on end, death threats and on and on. A massive system of oppression against millions! Many of these crimes have not been redressed and some of that keep happening even today. That very serious historical injustice call for redress and marriage equality is an important part of that process. In general if a group has been the victim of severe oppression and if most members of that group later call for an end to a legal segregation against them then their wish should carry the day.

            “… weakened institution of marriage is likely to only get weaker by redefining … reasons for its existence would be reduced … ”
            “… When people forget the core reasons for marriage …”

            You have already stated that you think the “core reasons” is to promote responsible child care to not burden the state. As I have shown, same sex couples also have need for practical support of their long term responsibility to care for their children so since that is, in your own view, marriage functions to support then marriage equality is a very important and good step forward. So on the contrary the reasons for the existence of legal marriage (to not burden the state) would only be strengthened by marriage equality. And as have already been said there is no evidence that marriage equality, as compared to same sex “legal unions” which you yourself already support, bring negative effects. There is no evidence of people caring less for children as a result from marriage equality in countries that have marriage equality. Homophobes will FEEL that there MUST be such negative effects but fact are facts.

            “… the decline has already been happening for decades with barely half of American adults were married in 2010, compared to 72% back in 1962… ”

            If you worry that few marry then support marriage equality which gives millions more the chance to marry and take responsible take of their children.

            “… people started to care more about just being happy instead of the core tenants of marriage for the responsibility and duty…”

            If some persons think too much of themselves and neglect responsibility for their partner and children then the answer is targeted campaigns towards those individuals. The state could fund more educational material and support for example. But you don’t help some individual to become responsible through legal segregation against millions of other innocent persons. Seriously, what causal patterns do you imagine here? “Ok, now that our neighbors Sarah and Edith can marry and take responsible care for their son John in a stable long term relation then I, Richard, will react to that news by no longer having any care for my wife Susan and our little boy Tim. Instead I will live a reckless life. Damn homosexuals and their marriages, giving me all these bad consequences! They made me forget to be responsible!”.

            Homophobes often mistakenly think same sex couples are less responsible. Such homophobes are caught up in their own disgust from thinking about men having sex with men. The homophobe’s emotional fears distort his ability to see the facts and prejudice rules him.

            “…ignoring even the same sex couples who don’t want that either …”
            “… same sex couples want to be proud of who they are … forming their own form of marriage. …”
            “… ignoring that same sex couples also …” (repetition)
            “… not all gay people want to marry …” (repetition again, now from Nathanson)

            I have not ignored but on the contrary replied twice already. Here for the third time:

            Not all different sex couples want (the option) to marry either. So what? Most same sex couples do want the equal option to marry, as Nathanson admits. Since most same sex couples want the option to marry we should provide it and since most different sex couples also want the option to marry we should let them have it too. Simple!

            Remember also that some same sex couples who hesitate to answer yes to marriage equality proposals do so for temporary strategic reasons, out of fear of backlash from the many homophobes in this country and the political power the homophobes still have. In countries that have embraced marriage equality there is strong support for it from same sex couples and from people with homosexual orientation.

            Furthermore if you still worry that some same sex couples are “forced” to have the perfectly optional possibility to choose marriage on equal terms with other citizens then the solution is straightforward: make both legal “marriage” and “civil union” equally open to both same sex and different sex couples. Everyone couple has the right to choose which of the two they want. I think most same sex couples would pick “marriage” but some may freely pick the other alternative. And there would be some different sex couples in both categories too. Freedom! Diversity! Difference! This proposal scores high on all counts.

            Now that I have replied it is your turn. Answer me yes or no: do you accept having two legal options “marriage” and “civil union” that both same and different sex couples can equally choose freely from themselves. Yes or no?

            “…like forcing all Americans to only identify themselves as Americans…”
            I have replied to that already and wait for you to engage with the details of that reply.

            You then bring in Nathanson and I’ll reply to him too.

            “Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm that limits marriage to unions of men and women … [that no] society can do without it.”

            Easily disproven: there are already societies with marriage equality that do just fine, like Norway and Iceland. Both those countries have higher child health outcomes than the united states. They also have lower frequency of violence than the US and many other positive outcomes. Life on Iceland is good, the evidence shows, and marriage equality is working out great. Facts beats prejudice!

            “… the best of marriage (providing at least one parent or other adult of each sex) is better than the best of gay marriage …”

            Some think that from prejudice but there is actually no empirical support for it. In countries with marriage equality the children of married same sex parents do very well.

            “Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage … flawed …”
            Why is the comparison flawed? Both racists and those who legally segregate homosexuals want segregation. Both the group of blacks and the group of homosexuals have been systematically oppressed in the US. There is a long dark history of violence, murder and extreme prejudice against both groups. Prejudice is widespread even today. Therefore to counter the comparison Nathanson will have to find a strong argument that shows a big difference in practical consequences. But the most substantial thing he offers apparently is the claim that legal segregation against same sex couples are “bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic reasons”.

            Mumble mumble! Why can’t men and women get together “practically” when same sex couples have marriage? Think of our example Richard again. What prevents Richard from keeping any practical and symbolic relation he has to his wife Susan after the neighbors Sara and Edith can and do marry? “Susan, since our same sex neighbors married I feel that I cannot connect to you symbolically anymore. I want a divorce!”

            “… homophobic … is meant prejudice and hostility … The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly …”

            I see homophobia as a culturally produced confusion, a prejudice, mixed with emotions of disgust. That doesn’t by itself make the homophobe evil, though some homophobes do things that have very harmful effects, worst case being assault and murder. I of course don’t think you would commit violent crimes. However when you repeatedly say puffed up things about “negative consequences” but time and again to find empirical evidence then you are prejudiced.

          31. Sorry but you’re just in denial, fact is much of what you’re arguing against was quoted from people like Paul Nathanson, who as I pointed out is gay himself!

            So no, you’re the one who’s prejudiced… you’re biased by your assumptions and ignoring of what marriage really meant to both society and government throughout history… You’re biased by the fact that just because people have abused other people that you now go to such extremes that you even ignore what the people you claim to fight for really want!

            You don’t care about the same sex couples who are proud of who they are, some even to the point they think marriage is a outdated institution…

            There’s really plenty of empirical evidence from all the societies that have risen and fallen throughout history, but you just don’t want to see their validity or even truly bother to read up on them…

            It’s really obvious to anyone willing to really see what’s going on… the United States for example has done things like spent about one billion dollars since 2006 – trying to educate low income Americans of the value of marriage – with the goal of minimizing divorce and single parent families… Many other countries tried similar things like using tax breaks to help promote marriage but it is in decline already… surveys show that Overall, 89% of the world’s population lives in a country with a steady pattern of decline!

            The countries with the highest rate of decline being western nations like the US, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan… one of the common factors attributed to this decline was high rates of non-marital cohabitation, either replacing marriage or as part of a pattern of delayed marriage… ergo, the face people are already forgetting the responsibility and duty of the institution of marriage and already begun to think of it in only the romanticized version as you’ve been arguing for!

            While the decline of marriage has been going on, the rise of new families or what some would call modern families has risen…

            Really, there’s plenty of evidence to show the institution of marriage is already under assault and that’s not even going into the unintended consequences of redefining marriage, which again we can look at historical examples of when it happened before!

            So you can try to continue to pretend that none of what I’ve stated matters but you’re only end up fighting for the wrong solution and history will just end up repeating itself again…

            Again, only through acceptance of our diversity can we ever become truly equal! Any other solution will at best only hide the flaws in our society and that won’t solve anything and could make it worse for everyone!

          32. I fear you are entering homophobic panic mode. Please take a deep breath. Homosexuals are not conspiring to touch your Johnson, you can relax.

            “…much of what you’re arguing against was quoted from people like Paul Nathanson, who as I pointed out is gay himself …”

            Nathanson is gay, so what? Lack of empirical evidence is what it is.

            “…you even ignore what the people you claim to fight for really want …”
            “… You don’t care about the same sex couples who are proud of who they are…”

            For the fourth time, here is my answer to that.

            Not all different sex couples want (the option) to marry either. So what? Most same sex couples do want the equal option to marry, as Nathanson admits. Since most same sex couples want the option to marry we should provide it and since most different sex couples also want the option to marry we should let them have it too. Simple!

            Remember also that some same sex couples who hesitate to answer yes to marriage equality proposals do so for temporary strategic reasons, out of fear of backlash from the many homophobes in this country and the political power the homophobes still have. In countries that have embraced marriage equality there is strong support for it from same sex couples and from people with homosexual orientation.

            Furthermore if you still worry that some same sex couples are “forced” to have the perfectly optional possibility to choose marriage on equal terms with other citizens then the solution is straightforward: make both legal “marriage” and “civil union” equally open to both same sex and different sex couples. Everyone couple has the right to choose which of the two they want. I think most same sex couples would pick “marriage” but some may freely pick the other alternative. And there would be some different sex couples in both categories too. Freedom! Diversity! Difference! This proposal scores high on all counts.

            Now that I have replied it is your turn. Answer me yes or no: do you accept having two legal options “marriage” and “civil union” that both same and different sex couples can equally choose freely from themselves. Yes or no?

            “… There’s really plenty of empirical evidence from all the societies that have risen and fallen throughout history …”
            “… the unintended consequences of redefining marriage, which again we can look at historical examples of when it happened before! …”
            “… history will just end up repeating itself again…”

            Ok, show the evidence. Remember that to not be on topic you need to give empirical evidence showing “negative consequences” caused by marriage equality, in contrast to legal “civil union” which you already accept. So, what historical cases of going from “civil union” to also legalising “marriage” are you thinking of?

            You also did not reply to my questions about what causal patterns you are imagining. Do you think this is how it works: “Ok, now that our neighbors Sarah and Edith can marry and take responsible care for their son John in a stable long term relation then I, Richard, will react to that news by no longer having any care for my wife Susan and our little boy Tim. Instead I will live a reckless life. Damn homosexuals and their marriages, giving me all these bad consequences! They made me forget to be responsible!”.

            “… people are already forgetting the responsibility and duty of the institution of marriage …”

            You have already stated that you think the “core reasons” is to promote responsible child care to not burden the state. As I have shown, same sex couples also have need for practical support of their long term responsibility to care for their children so since that is, in your own view, marriage functions to support then marriage equality is a very important and good step forward. So on the contrary the reasons for the existence of legal marriage (to not burden the state) would only be strengthened by marriage equality. And as have already been said there is no evidence that marriage equality, as compared to same sex “legal unions” which you yourself already support, bring negative effects. There is no evidence of people caring less for children as a result from marriage equality in countries that have marriage equality.

          33. “Nathanson is gay, so what? Lack of empirical evidence is what it is”

            No, he wrote a book analyzing it all and discusses both the reasoning and historical aspects! And I pointed at even more evidence which you again choice to simply gloss over!

            While the fact is gay means his opinion is one of the people who would be directly effected by this topic and is obviously not a homophobe!

            But you simply refuse to read, or at least accept it, because it would force you to face the real truths and that what you’re fighting for is really a lie!

            “Not all different sex couples want (the option) to marry either. So what?”

            Because you’re confusing having the right to live the way people want with needing to change the institution of marriage instead of simply amending it!

            Again, you’re ignoring even the opinions of people who would be directly effected by same sex marriage! So no, you’re the one with bias because you’re refusing to even consider the people who would be directly effected who want something else!

            So it’s a lie that you’re really for equality because what you want won’t produce equality, just simply hide people’s differences instead of making people accept those differences!

            Even forgetting all the reasons why the already weakened institution of marriage would further suffer by continuing to redefine it… the simple fact of the matter is you don’t really care about equality because if you really did then you would be fighting for acceptance of our differences instead of trying to hide them!

            Really, what you want is the equivalent of the military don’t ask, don’t tell policy! Hiding is not accepting and doesn’t change anything for the better!

            How you fail to understand this fundamental truth for obtaining equality is beyond me but apparently that’s your mindset and forget anyone who disagrees with you because in your mind the only way to disagree with your is to be a homophobe, even if the people you’re calling homophobes are gay/lesbian themselves!

            You really have a lot of gall to keep on using such an obvious lie but you’ve revealed your true colors here by refusing to accept even the dissenting opinions of the people it would directly effect!

            Really, I’m not the one who doesn’t listen to the people who this would actually replace, but you are! So you can stop pretending you really care!

          34. Evidence would mean references to empirical studies that precisely show what you claim, namely measurable bad effects peoples lives in terms of health outcomes or the like caused by “marriage equality”. Do you have any evidence?

            Here is a fact for you: A 2013 study Show that LGBT Americans overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage. Close to 9-in-10 (86%) LGBT people support allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry.

            Since the overwhelming majority in that group, a group historically severely oppressed, are for marriage equality we should accept that. That is my argument.

            Answer this yes or no:

            If a large majority of a historically oppressed group ask for a legal segregation against them to be removed, then we should accept that? Yes or no?

            do you accept having two legal options “marriage” and “civil union” that both same and different sex couples can equally choose freely from themselves. Yes or no?

          35. “Evidence would mean references to empirical studies that precisely show
            what you claim, namely measurable bad effects peoples lives in terms of
            health outcomes or the like caused by “marriage equality”. Do you have
            any evidence?”

            I already pointed out the already observed decline of marriage and how the changing values has been negatively impacting it and the consequential rise of alternative family types taking over and also pointed out that historically same sex marriage had been allowed before but it always wound up revoked because it never positively impacted any previous societies…

            Really, I’ve already pointed out that the decline effects a massive 89% of the world’s population that coincides with a decline in the original interpretation of marriage and the growing dominance of the modern romanticized view of marriage. So there is cause and effect…

            Just like climate change, you don’t need a smoking gun, completely ruined societies, to see where things are going and how a further change in the interpretation and meaning of marriage away from its original core meaning can hurt it further…

            “Here is a fact for you: A 2013 study Show that LGBT Americans
            overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage. Close to 9-in-10 (86%) LGBT
            people support allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry.”

            Not quite accurate, like I pointed out earlier most people are just against the idea of needing to redefine marriage but most people are for allowing a form of marriage for same sex couples to have the same basic rights… So it’s the need to redefine marriage that’s causing the majority of the conflict…

            “If a large majority of a historically oppressed group ask for a legal
            segregation against them to be removed, then we should accept that? Yes
            or no?”

            Depends, it’s not a yes or no answer because sometimes there are reasons why a group is separate… like quarantined for diseases, politically to separate two or more nations that have every right to be separate nations…

            And as pointed out before, redefining marriage to just be about love opens the door to all other forms of marriage that are presently also prevented…

            I’m sure you’d agree we shouldn’t let things like daughters marry their fathers, under age to marry before the agreed upon age of consent, etc.

            You’re just too focused on one group to understand it’s far more involved!

            “do you accept having two legal options “marriage” and “civil union” that
            both same and different sex couples can equally choose freely from
            themselves.”

            Yes, I accept having two level options and for making them equivalent in the eyes of the law… Just not having the core reasons marriage was originally founded removed because the responsibility and duty is important to the continued success or failure of any society’s sustainability… Thus why I see an amendment of marriage as the better solution… along with allowing people to start accepting each other for who they are instead of hiding it as that’s the only way to really allow people to become equals…

          36. Again: Evidence in matters of fact would mean references to empirical studies. You need to cite studies of measurable bad effects in peoples lives in terms of health outcomes or the like caused by “marriage equality”. You haven’t given a simple empirical source.

            “Depends … reasons why a group is separate… like quarantined for diseases …”

            Ok, but do you at least accept this: in order to make an exception to the rule (if a large majority of a historically oppressed group ask for a legal segregation against them to be removed, then we should accept that) we need a strong reason and, if the reason concerns facts we need EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE about big and measurable negative consequences, like for example in the case of quarantines for serious disease outbreaks. In that case we would need evidence of the disease, health care research of negative effects in peoples bodies and evidence that the quarantine will produce a change in those negative effects. It would be very reckless to quarantine or otherwise segregate millions of citizens unless very stringent empirical evidence was in place.

            Do you accept that? Yes or no.

            “not having the core reasons marriage was originally founded removed because the responsibility and duty is important to the continued success or failure of any society’s sustainability”

            1. Do you agree that same sex couples have responsibilities and duties to their children?
            2. do you agree that it is important to support parents in their responsibilities and duties?

            yes or no.

            “… we shouldn’t let things like daughters marry their fathers, under age to marry before the agreed upon age of consent, etc. …”

            Yes I agree. But since there is no evidence of a slippery slope effect were marriage equality exists, that question can be set aside.

            “… accepting each other for who they are …”
            Hold up! It is a fact that 86% of LGBT people in America themselves identify as persons who do not want to be legally segregated and who WANT TO THE OPTION TO MARRY. U.S. Census Bureau statistics show over 600.000 same-sex couple households in the US. You do not know “who they are” better than all of these couples themselves.

            You forgot to respond to the example I gave, is this how you think the “negative consequences” happens: “Ok, now that our neighbors Sarah and Edith can marry and take responsible care for their son John in a stable long term relation then I, Richard, will react to that news by no longer having any care for my wife Susan and our little boy Tim. Instead I will live a reckless life. Damn homosexuals and their marriages, giving me all these bad consequences! They made me forget to be responsible!”.

            Many homophobes kid themselves that they are not. I suggest you Google ProjectImplicit and do the test on homosexuality.

          37. You/Nathanson earlier claimed that not society “can do without” limiting marriage to different sex couples only. I replied with this: there are already societies with marriage equality that do just fine, like Norway and Iceland. Both those countries have higher child health outcomes than the united states. They also have lower frequency of violence than the US and many other positive outcomes. Life on Iceland is good, the evidence shows, and marriage equality is working out great.

            Do you accept all the factual statemens I make in the reply? Yes or no. If you answer no, what is your objection.

          38. “ProjectImplicit”

            Only test there is for sexual preference… not really whether you’re biased towards one or the other! I tried it anyway and came out slight, whatever that means…

            Besides, you’ve obviously don’t truly understand the term because a phobia is a irrational fear that needs no meaning to exist but you’re calling even principled disagreement based on logical reasoning and actual consequences as homophobia…

            This is akin to telling someone who disagrees that raising taxes won’t solve all problems as being a racist simply because the person who wants to raise the taxes is of a different racial background…

            Thus, you’re only practicing deceptive rhetoric that tries to discredit any opposition because you really don’t want a debate… you want everyone to shut up and agree with you already!

            “Again: Evidence in matters of fact would mean references to empirical
            studies. You need to cite studies of measurable bad effects in peoples
            lives in terms of health outcomes or the like caused by “marriage
            equality”. You haven’t given a simple empirical source.”

            And I’ve pointed out to what that research has shown… Here are some related articles…

            https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/marriage-is-declining/

            https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

            https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html

            https://www.westernjournalism.com/gay-marriage-brings-polygamy-north-dakota/

            But it’s a fact that marriage has declined significantly world wide and mainly in Western culture nations where the concept of marriage has changed the most!

            Really, we’re not talking about a new phenomena but something that’s been happening over 70 years!

            “Ok, but do you at least accept this: in order to make an exception to
            the rule (if a large majority of a historically oppressed group ask for a
            legal segregation against them to be removed, then we should accept
            that)”

            No fair minded person would disagree with removing an unfair oppression but you’re glossing over the fact that you’re assuming a direct link between oppression and a institution that arguably had nothing to do with it!

            Sorry but you’re ignoring the fact that marriage wasn’t created for the romanticized reasons but for practical needs of society and what you want to do is basically make sure those reasons are forgotten just to provide a superficial sense of equality that in all likelihood would turn out to be false…

            Since you’re assuming redefining marriage will change anything but, just to show a similar instance for comparison, do you think the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy created equality among our military?

            It’s pretty obvious that it did not because putting different groups together under one title to avoid showing any differences doesn’t change that those differences still exist and no one will bother to try to accept those differences if they’re hidden!

            Only through accepting our differences can we accept each other as equals!

            Really, what’s the point of things like Gay Pride day except to allow people to face what’s different and let them come to accept it!

            Redefining marriage will only force society to conform to a
            new paradigm but the difference between conformity and change is only
            through change can the status quo really be changed…

            Whether same sex or other, people have to see their own self worth as well as point it out to others… It’s psychology 101 that to change minds you have to get people to see you for who you are and accept not only who you are but that you are a person, just like them…

            So, regardless of how you feel about the institution of marriage, or think will happen to it, the facts are we’re all different but we can still accept each other as equal as long as we face those differences and come to terms with them… but we would never do that by hiding who we are…

            Really, much of the changing attitudes towards gay/lesbians over the years has come not from pretending to be the same as everyone else but from exposure and making people see them for who they really are!

            Now, if you still think that’s homophobic then there’s no hope for you and as the old saying goes, with friends like you… who needs enemies! Meaning, you may think you’re part of the solution but you’re really part of the problem!

          39. “… Only test there is for sexual preference… ”
            Strange, there used to be a test there on implicit bias. Oh well, I’ll track down another test and link to it later.

            “… You’re calling even principled disagreement based on … actual consequences …”
            No, it is your way of repeatedly making big factual claims that granting legal equality to traditionally oppressed minority will bring “negative consequences” WITHOUT PROVIDING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that show your prejudice and homophobia.

            It is a fact that you in all you posts up until now HAVE NOT provided empirical evidence. If you want to avoid looking like a prejudiced homophobe then show evidence from the start.

            Speaking of the evidence. You need to cite empirical studies that show that measurable bad effects in peoples lives in terms of health outcomes or the like ARE CAUSED BY “marriage equality”. Note exactly what evidence I ask for here: EVIDENCE THAT MARRIAGE EQUALITY ITSELF CAUSES NEGATIVE EFFECTS.

            Now let us look at the sources you give:

            1&2. familyinequality & pew: shows that the marriage frequency is generally lowering. That is true. I haven’t doubted that.

            4. westernjournalism: describes a small legal loophole in one location. True, but irrelevant. That legal technicality can and will be fixed as marriage equality becomes the norm in the whole USA. We know this from the fact that there is no slippery slope in other countries, like Norway and Iceland, that have marriage equality.

            That leaves only source 3, a newspaper that briefly describes claims by sociologist Patricia Morgan. One first thing to note is that Patricia Morgan does political activism on the extreme conservative right. That doesn’t automatically disqualify her of course but we should critically examine what evidence (if any) she has. I read Morgan’s report and she makes two claims:
            A. marriage equality does not cause an increase in total marriage frequency
            B. marriage equality causes a decrease in heterosexual marriages

            Your claim that marriage equality has “negative consequences” needs, as a first step, find enough evidence for claim B. Problem is that Morgan fails at that.

            Morgan’s argument for B is that Spain after allowing same sex marriage in 2005 has seen a faster lowering of the marriage frequency than in the period before 2005. But that is not enough to establish B. First, Spain is a single country but Morgan makes a general claim (more on this below). Second, Spain has gone through a period of extreme and special economic trouble since 2005. Unemployments among young people are astronomical and many adult children have to keep living with their parents for economic reasons. Those conditions tend to postpone marriage, which is an alternative explanation for the faster lowering. Since Morgan misses that explanation she hasn’t proven B. Third, and most importantly, Morgan cannot find a similar increase in the rate of lowering of marriages after introduction of same sex marriage in the other countries she talks about: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Belgium. If B was true there should be accelerated lowering in those countries too. But Morgon shows no such evidence. Her claim B then fails to have empirical support.

            To sum up, none of the sources you gave proves B.

            Note that even if some other evidence for B would (contrary to fact so far) be found you would still have one step to go: you would need to show that societies with a lower marriage frequency has (overall) practical negative consequences in terms of child health or the like. You haven’t. Here is a roundup of empirical evidence on health and wellbeing for children with same sex parents:
            journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup . This quote sums up the general results: “Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.”

            Here is an overview to a large UNICEF report http://www.unicef-irc.org/Report-Card-11/ . It shows that the most countries that score best in terms of child well-being, health and safety, education, low negative behaviours and risk, and good housing and living enviroment are COUNTRIES THAT ALSO HAVE MARRIAGE EQUALITY: 1 netherlands, 2 Norway, 3 Iceland, 5 Sweden, 6 Germany. Compare this to the United States far down at position 26.

            Note that I’m not arguing that marriage equality per se caused those excellent child wellbeing outcomes, only that it coexists very well with them. And that is all I need to show to sink your big claim that marriage equality has “bad consequences” for children. There are two lessons here: you shouldn’t make claims that you cannot back up with facts. Second, if you REALLY care about child wellbeing you should start looking for ways to emulate what those countries that top the chart are doing.

            “do you think the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy created equality among our military?”
            No, because DADT prohibited gays from freely themselves choosing how to express their identity. Since 86% of LGBT people want to the option to marry legal segregation that forbids them from marrying is wrong for the same reason.

            “… what’s the point of things like Gay Pride day except…”
            That is not for you to decide buddy! Gay persons can themselves decide that and 86% of LGBT people want to the option to marry. Your wish to dominate over the wishes of that huge majority is really shameful. You are not superior, you have no claim to override what 86% of LGBT people themselves say they want or are or feel. Homophobic behaviour!

            Furthermore, when Sarah and Edith marry they and others still “see them for who they are”. Or do you imagine that their heterosexual neighbor Richard says: “Gee, I thought the neighbors were gay but since they married I guess I was wrong”? A married gay couple can still be members of the LGBT community, can participate in gay pride and everything else they deem important.

          40. Clarification: the third paragraph should start “It is a fact that you in all you posts before…”

          41. “It is a fact that you in all you posts up until now HAVE NOT provided empirical evidence.”

            No, it’s only a fact you’ve refused to accept any empirical evidence… Do you even know that empirical means gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience?

            Meaning logical conclusions apply!

            The core of your reasoning is the redefining would cause equality but there are multiple factors showing that won’t be the case…

            But examples like the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell has shown time and time again that avoiding our differences won’t lead to any real solutions!

            Being in denial about that doesn’t change that has been the truth for a very long time!

            “A married gay couple can still be members of the LGBT community, can
            participate in gay pride and everything else they deem important.”

            And they will still be seen as different because of that! Again, simply redefining marriage won’t change this because it avoids the core problem… It’s a fake solution that won’t really solve anything except to further separate marriage from the reasons of its origins…

            You can’t deny the core reasoning for arguing it should be done are all based on the modern romanticized image of marriage but the problem with that is that image is what has largely led to the decline of marriage over the last couple of decades!

            The sense of responsibility and duty of marriage has been steadily replaced by selfish concerns of being happy and getting things like tax breaks… which are not the foundation for a truly lasting relationship… Since people change, they won’t always be ridiculously happy with each other, and some even come to view marriage as something only of convenience for those who can afford it… thus the high level of decline among poor people despite many still seeing and wanting the benefits.

            And again, you refuse to even factor what many gay/lesbians want because you think your one solution will be better for all and just ignore any reason why it won’t!

            So no, you can’t use homophobia to justify your stance because you’re not really for getting people to accept same sex couples! And you’re ignoring all the consequences involved, both big and small to both sides!

          42. It is true that experience is empirical. But neither your nor my direct individual experience (what we see/hear in our lives) is sufficient to answer factual questions about large scale effects on the whole society. For those questions we need to look to large scale empirical research studies published in scientific journals. It is that sort of evidence I have given and I ask the same of you.

            We need such studies for all kinds of factual questions: how much is the climate changing? How many persons married last year? How many computers where sold in 2013? And so on. If you claim that marriage equality will have practical “negative consequences” like negative effects on child health on a societal level then you also need scientific evidence.

            Do you agree that we need to use scientific evidence from larger scale studies? Yes or no.

            I have taken time to answer in detail to the references you gave. But now you don’t say a word about that! That is not honest! Either openly accept my arguments or reply to them. I will repost until you reply:

            Now let us look at the sources you give:

            1&2. familyinequality & pew: shows that the marriage frequency is generally lowering. That is true. I haven’t doubted that.

            4. westernjournalism: describes a small legal loophole in one location. True, but irrelevant. That legal technicality can and will be fixed as marriage equality becomes the norm in the whole USA. We know this from the fact that there is no slippery slope in other countries, like Norway and Iceland, that have marriage equality.

            That leaves only source 3, a newspaper that briefly describes claims by sociologist Patricia Morgan. One first thing to note is that Patricia Morgan does political activism on the extreme conservative right. That doesn’t automatically disqualify her of course but we should critically examine what evidence (if any) she has. I read Morgan’s report and she makes two claims:
            A. marriage equality does not cause an increase in total marriage frequency
            B. marriage equality causes a decrease in heterosexual marriages

            Your claim that marriage equality has “negative consequences” needs, as a first step, find enough evidence for claim B. Problem is that Morgan fails at that.

            Morgan’s argument for B is that Spain after allowing same sex marriage in 2005 has seen a faster lowering of the marriage frequency than in the period before 2005. But that is not enough to establish B. First, Spain is a single country but Morgan makes a general claim (more on this below). Second, Spain has gone through a period of extreme and special economic trouble since 2005. Unemployments among young people are astronomical and many adult children have to keep living with their parents for economic reasons. Those conditions tend to postpone marriage, which is an alternative explanation for the faster lowering. Since Morgan misses that explanation she hasn’t proven B. Third, and most importantly, Morgan cannot find a similar increase in the rate of lowering of marriages after introduction of same sex marriage in the other countries she talks about: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Belgium. If B was true there should be accelerated lowering in those countries too. But Morgon shows no such evidence. Her claim B then fails to have empirical support.

            To sum up, none of the sources you gave proves B.

            Note that even if some other evidence for B would (contrary to fact so far) be found you would still have one step to go: you would need to show that societies with a lower marriage frequency has (overall) practical negative consequences in terms of child health or the like. You haven’t. Here is a roundup of empirical evidence on health and wellbeing for children with same sex parents:
            journalistsresource.org/studie… . This quote sums up the general results: “Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.”

            Here is an overview to a large UNICEF report http://www.unicef-irc.org/Report-Card... . It shows that the most countries that score best in terms of child well-being, health and safety, education, low negative behaviours and risk, and good housing and living enviroment are COUNTRIES THAT ALSO HAVE MARRIAGE EQUALITY: 1 netherlands, 2 Norway, 3 Iceland, 5 Sweden, 6 Germany. Compare this to the United States far down at position 26.

            Note that I’m not arguing that marriage equality per se caused those excellent child wellbeing outcomes, only that it coexists very well with them. And that is all I need to show to sink your big claim that marriage equality has “bad consequences” for children. There are two lessons here: you shouldn’t make claims that you cannot back up with facts. Second, if you REALLY care about child wellbeing you should start looking for ways to emulate what those countries that top the chart are doing.

            “… But examples like the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell has shown time and time again that avoiding our differences won’t lead to any real solutions! …”

            I replied to that already. DADT required that gay persons didn’t openly tell anyone about their sexuality. That is why it was wrong. Marriage equality does not require that. On the contrary, during the marriage ceremony and when the marriage is legally registered it is by design openly expressed that it is a same sex couple. DADT forced hiding. Marriage equality gives the freedom to openly choose marriage for those who want it.

            Do you agree that there is a difference in the sense that DADT forces the person to hide something whereas same sex marrige does not? Yes or no.

            “… It’s a fake solution…”
            That is not for you to decide buddy! Gay persons can themselves decide that and 86% of LGBT people want to the option to marry. Your wish to dominate over the wishes of that huge majority is REALLY SHAMEFUL. You are not superior, you have no claim to override what 86% of LGBT people themselves say they want or are or feel. Homophobic behaviour!

            Have you even personally talked to a LGBT person who want marriage equality? Would you point your finger at her, look her in the eye and say “YOU don’t know what your identity is, you don’t know what pride is, you don’t know what is best for yourself, I CyberGusa know that legal segregation is best for you even though you and 86% of all LGBT people yourself very much want marriage equality!”

            “…And again, you refuse to even factor what many gay/lesbians…”
            I do take that into account. But 86% of LGBT is a very large majority and their interest adds up to be stronger. But I factor in the other group by suggestion having both “marriage” and “civil union” open to both same sex and different sex couples.

            CyberGusa I have to ask: what do you do for a living? And how old are you? Do you have any friends that you fraternise with at least once a month that are gay?

          43. “We need such studies for all kinds of factual questions: how much is the
            climate changing? How many persons married last year? How many
            computers where sold in 2013? And so on.”

            And I’ve pointed you to books and articles that already draw from those studies!

            It’s a fact, not a opinion, that far fewer people get married today than they used to! That is what all the hard data shows… It’s the interpretation of the data that brings up questions… but we can draw conclusions from what changed during that time of decline to show the links between the decline and how our society has changed over these decades to be at least contributing factors.

            Like Climate change, we know it’s happening… we just don’t know the exact details of whether it will lead completely to disaster, of either continued global warming or the reverse and the return to an ice age, or just equal a periodic shift as has been the case every few centuries but in either case we know that things will not be staying the same…

            Society, like the climate, changes over time and there are multiple aspects that attribute to those changes… While we can argue about their importance, it remains true that they at the very least contribute to what we’re dealing with now and how it will likely further influence future trends…

            Problem with empirical evidence is it’s never really a smoking gun… People can refute just about anything if it isn’t a smoking gun… Like pointing out you have a higher chance of being in a car accident if you text and drive doesn’t stop everyone from texting and driving because a chance of something happening isn’t enough to convince them, even if all the evidence points to it being almost a certainty.

            So let’s not pretend I haven’t given you any empirical evidence, you simply remain unconvinced!

            While larger scale studies may help, facts are they’ve been doing that for decades for things like Climate change and a lot of people still aren’t convinced…

            There comes a time when you just have to either follow logical reasoning or just what you want to believe…

            “Have you even personally talked to a LGBT person who want marriage
            equality? Would you point your finger at her, look her in the eye and
            say “YOU don’t know what your identity is, you don’t know what pride is,
            you don’t know what is best for yourself, I CyberGusa know that legal
            segregation is best for you even though you and 86% of all LGBT people
            yourself very much want marriage equality!”

            Now that’s all a false comparison… For one thing I wouldn’t tell them what to believe, just to analyze the real reasons they may want something and tell them whether that really leads to what they want or not…

            If they want to hide who they are and just not be bothered by others then what you suggest is what they want… but if they want to be equals then I’d point out the fact there’s only one way to do that and it’s not by hiding!

            While pointing out that many same sex couples do want true equality and not just the semblance of it is not something simply to be dismissed, regardless!

            Fact remains what you want won’t garner progress towards gay/lesbians being treated as equals because it avoids the subject by just redefining marriage instead… Making it no different than the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy…

            Sure, it can get people to leave them alone but not to accept them as equals and that’s the core thing you keep on avoiding in this discussion!

            “CyberGusa I have to ask: what do you do for a living? And how old are
            you? Do you have any friends that you fraternise with at least once a
            month that are gay?”

            Presently, I have a part time job… used to be a graphic designer, I generally go about helping people whenever I can, usually on computer forums, and yes… I’ve have had gay/lesbian friends before, last one died so I don’t see him anymore… but I generally don’t have a issue with anybody but I am a stickler for the truth… People may not always like to hear it but there it is nonetheless…

          44. “It’s a fact, not a opinion, that far fewer people get married today than they used to!”

            That is true, I agree with you on that. It is not that I am objecting to. I argue that you have no evidence for the claim that marriage equality causes “negative consequences” in terms of negative child health effects or the like. That in turn sinks your case against marriage equality.

            One way to test your claim about “negative consequences” for children empirically is to look to the countries that have adopted marriage equality. We can here apply a general method: compare before and after. If you say that introducing something X (marriage equality) once introduced will produce a certain effect Y (the trend toward fewer marriages will increase in speed) then you investigage all places where X has been introduced. That is what your only empirical source that argues on that topic, Patricia Morgan, tried. But, as I showed, she failed since many countries with same sex marriage have NOT had an increase in the increase in the lowering of the marriage frequency after introducing marriage equality and her only possible case has another explanation that fits the data.

            This means that there is evidence against your claim. In general, if you say that X causes Y but I then show you many clear cases of X without effect Y then your claim is in trouble.

            In the previous post I took time to do that and answered in detail the references you gave. Either openly accept my arguments or reply to them. I will repost until you reply. Now let us look at the sources you give:

            1&2. familyinequality & pew: shows that the marriage frequency is generally lowering. That is true. I haven’t doubted that.

            4. westernjournalism: describes a small legal loophole in one location. True, but irrelevant. That legal technicality can and will be fixed as marriage equality becomes the norm in the whole USA. We know this from the fact that there is no slippery slope in other countries, like Norway and Iceland, that have marriage equality.

            That leaves only source 3, a newspaper that briefly describes claims by sociologist Patricia Morgan. One first thing to note is that Patricia Morgan does political activism on the extreme conservative right. That doesn’t automatically disqualify her of course but we should critically examine what evidence (if any) she has. I read Morgan’s report and she makes two claims:
            A. marriage equality does not cause an increase in total marriage frequency
            B. marriage equality causes a decrease in heterosexual marriages

            Your claim that marriage equality has “negative consequences” needs, as a first step, find enough evidence for claim B. Problem is that Morgan fails at that.

            Morgan’s argument for B is that Spain after allowing same sex marriage in 2005 has seen a faster lowering of the marriage frequency than in the period before 2005. But that is not enough to establish B. First, Spain is a single country but Morgan makes a general claim (more on this below). Second, Spain has gone through a period of extreme and special economic trouble since 2005. Unemployments among young people are astronomical and many adult children have to keep living with their parents for economic reasons. Those conditions tend to postpone marriage, which is an alternative explanation for the faster lowering. Since Morgan misses that explanation she hasn’t proven B. Third, and most importantly, Morgan cannot find a similar increase in the rate of lowering of marriages after introduction of same sex marriage in the other countries she talks about: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Belgium. If B was true there should be accelerated lowering in those countries too. But Morgon shows no such evidence. Her claim B then fails to have empirical support.

            To sum up, none of the sources you gave proves B.

            Note that even if some other evidence for B would (contrary to fact so far) be found you would still have one step to go: you would need to show that societies with a lower marriage frequency has (overall) practical negative consequences in terms of child health or the like. You haven’t. Here is a roundup of empirical evidence on health and wellbeing for children with same sex parents:
            journalistsresource.org/studie… . This quote sums up the general results: “Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.”

            Here is an overview to a large UNICEF report http://www.unicef-irc.org/Report-Card... . It shows that the most countries that score best in terms of child well-being, health and safety, education, low negative behaviours and risk, and good housing and living enviroment are COUNTRIES THAT ALSO HAVE MARRIAGE EQUALITY: 1 netherlands, 2 Norway, 3 Iceland, 5 Sweden, 6 Germany. Compare this to the United States far down at position 26.

            Note that I’m not arguing that marriage equality per se caused those excellent child wellbeing outcomes, only that it coexists very well with them. And that is all I need to show to sink your big claim that marriage equality has “bad consequences” for children. There are two lessons here: you shouldn’t make claims that you cannot back up with facts. Second, if you REALLY care about child wellbeing you should start looking for ways to emulate what those countries that top the chart are doing.

            Since you avoided yes/no questions again here is an even simpler task for you. You saw the reference to the unicef report above. Now simply repost this without the quote marks: “I CyberGusa accept that there is clear evidence that the countries that are best in the world at providing children with wellbeing are countries that also have marriage equality”.

          45. “That is true, I agree with you on that. It is not that I am objecting
            to. I argue that you have no evidence for the claim that marriage
            equality causes “negative consequences” in terms of negative child
            health effects or the like. That in turn sinks your case against
            marriage equality.”

            No, we’ll have to disagree because I believe it’s self evident that removing the reasons for marriage is what has led to its decline and further removing the core original reasons from the reasons why people should both get married and stay married will only further weaken the institution…

            Like Norway gets used by both sides, even though it’s not very conclusive either way but it does show that while same sex marriage can increase the total number of marriages there that hetero marriage has actually continued to decline there and further supported the switch to alternate unions that are also allowed there have risen instead.

            I also the original core reasons for marriage and the sense of responsibility and duty it has traditionally entailed is still important to society and thus people have a right to want to preserve that sense of responsibility and duty…

            Now, we don’t disagree on everything but we do disagree on how best to go about it…

            I perceive the main problem is you still equate marriage equality by needing to include all versions as being treated as the same but I don’t believe that leads to true equality because it doesn’t address people’s differences… So even disregarding what could happen to the institution of marriage, the core reason of wanting equality would still not be addressed unless we take the different tact of amending marriage for a true acceptance of same sex marriage in order to accept it as equal…

            We differ in thinking that being different doesn’t have to be a bad thing but actually good because I believe that since we are in fact all different that only by facing and accepting those differences can people truly see each other as equals…

            It’s rather the idea of thinking differences are bad that leads to true segregation and lack of acceptance of people’s difference and thus the inability to see each other as equals…

            Now, you may want to spin what I say one way or another but in truth I only want people to be treated equally and I think my view is the best way to get there…

          46. Since you avoided yes/no questions again here is an even simpler task for you. You saw the reference to the unicef report above. Now simply repost this without the quote marks: “I CyberGusa accept that there is clear evidence that the countries that are best in the world at providing children with wellbeing are countries that also have marriage equality”.

          47. In the previous post I took time to do that and answered in detail
            the references you gave. Either openly accept my arguments or reply to
            them. I will repost until you reply. Now let us look at the sources you
            give:

            1&2. familyinequality & pew: shows that the marriage
            frequency is generally lowering. That is true. I haven’t doubted that.

            4.
            westernjournalism: describes a small legal loophole in one location.
            True, but irrelevant. That legal technicality can and will be fixed as
            marriage equality becomes the norm in the whole USA. We know this from
            the fact that there is no slippery slope in other countries, like Norway
            and Iceland, that have marriage equality.

            That leaves only source
            3, a newspaper that briefly describes claims by sociologist Patricia
            Morgan. One first thing to note is that Patricia Morgan does political
            activism on the extreme conservative right. That doesn’t automatically
            disqualify her of course but we should critically examine what evidence
            (if any) she has. I read Morgan’s report and she makes two claims:
            A. marriage equality does not cause an increase in total marriage frequency
            B. marriage equality causes a decrease in heterosexual marriages

            Your
            claim that marriage equality has “negative consequences” needs, as a
            first step, find enough evidence for claim B. Problem is that Morgan
            fails at that.

            Morgan’s argument for B is that Spain after
            allowing same sex marriage in 2005 has seen a faster lowering of the
            marriage frequency than in the period before 2005. But that is not
            enough to establish B. First, Spain is a single country but Morgan makes
            a general claim (more on this below). Second, Spain has gone through a
            period of extreme and special economic trouble since 2005. Unemployments
            among young people are astronomical and many adult children have to
            keep living with their parents for economic reasons. Those conditions
            tend to postpone marriage, which is an alternative explanation for the
            faster lowering. Since Morgan misses that explanation she hasn’t proven
            B. Third, and most importantly, Morgan cannot find a similar increase in
            the rate of lowering of marriages after introduction of same sex
            marriage in the other countries she talks about: Sweden, Norway,
            Denmark, Germany, Belgium. If B was true there should be accelerated
            lowering in those countries too. But Morgon shows no such evidence. Her
            claim B then fails to have empirical support.

            To sum up, none of the sources you gave proves B.

          48. “the Unicef report doesn’t show that the majority of children are being born out of wedlock in Norway”
            The report is done by well respected researches and uses established scientific methods. It show facts about well established measures of child well being, like health outcomes. The number of marriages is taken into consideration in the report because if fewer marriages, or the existence of same sex marriage, did have any real negative effects then those effect would be seen in the numbers. If fewer marriages caused neglect for children then those children would fare ill and the data would show that. Turns out there are no such big effects.

            “Unicef is a political body that has been known to twist studies before in favor of their agenda.”
            Homophobic conspiracy theory! What evidence for “twisted” studies do you have? If there is a flaw in this particular study then you should point it out.

            Remember that I replied in detail to Morgan’s claim, which you then stopped talking about. Morgan is the only reference with claims about large scale negative effects in terms of child health and the like that you have given. And it failed. So after all your posts you have NOTHING in terms of scientific evidence to show.

            Now ask yourself this: is there a possibility that you are in fact mistaken, marriage equality will not have negative effects in the US? Yes or no. Note that I don’t ask you to admit that you are mistaken (yet) only to come out and admit that there is a possibility.

            Then describe what kind of empirical evidence that, if you did discover it, would give your reason to change your mind and drop your opposition to marriage equality. Again, I only ask you to say something like “if scientific studies would show the fact A and B and C then I would drop my opposition to marriage equality”.

            “Norway … while same sex marriage can increase the total number of marriages there that hetero marriage has actually continued to decline there and further supported the switch to alternate unions that are also allowed there have risen instead.”

            Imagine a river that has been flowing water for a long time. Now a man walks into the water. Another person on the beach sees that the water continues to move downstream and says “Look that man causes the water to flow downstream!”.

            “the original core reasons for marriage and the sense of responsibility and duty … is still important to society”

            Define “core original reasons”.

            “… I don’t believe that leads to true equality because it doesn’t address people’s differences…”

            What other segregation do you want the state to force onto LGBT people? Mandatory “hetero” and “gay” sections on public buses to spatially segregate the two groups. A law that requires segregated “hetero” and “gay” seats in sport stadiums?

          49. I can’t help it if you want to erroneously oversimplify a complicated issue…

            Like the Unicef report doesn’t show that the majority of children are being born out of wedlock in Norway, for example… and Unicef is a political body that has been known to twist studies before in favor of their agenda… So, the simple fact they left out details like whether the children were born in wedlock or out shows that is not the complete picture!

            Like such countries also have socialized systems that provide generally better support for the average citizen regardless of who they are or how they live… Helps that such countries also don’t have to support their own military… So most of their resources can go to their citizens but that’s not the case in countries like the US with over 60% of the total budget going to the military… Which is why even universal health care is having problems right now here because we simply don’t have the resources properly support that plan…

            While you forget I also mentioned Norway has alternatives to marriage… so people don’t need to get married to get most of the same rights there as well and thus helps explain why even though hetero marriage has declined that non-married hetero couples can still raise children but doesn’t change the decline of marriage and its role in even that society when more and more people just move to an alternative instead…

            Interview with many Swedish people for example find amazement that there is even concern about marriage because unmarried people still go about with family lives there… one interview I read even said they’d maybe get married later just to have a big party… People in the Nordic region may still regard legal marriage as a serious step, but not more serious than having a loving, long-term relationship, or parenthood… hardly the setting the responsibility and sense of duty as it once stood for as a priority anymore!

            “The main thing for us is that our relationship works, and we will fight
            just as much to make it work whether or not we are married,” is one of many such quotes from people living in Sweden…

            Many wait till they’re older to marry, if they do at all… essentially divorcing the link to procreation…

            So, like I said before, Norway has often been used erroneously by both sides but looking at all the data reveals what has changed and where the dynamics of importance of marriage has changed in those countries…

            But add countries like the US don’t have the framework to support as liberal and socialistic lifestyles as countries like Norway support means the impact can be much worse here…

            Really, I know you don’t want to believe me but this really is a complicated issue and not everyone arguing with you are doing so because they don’t want equality but there are arguably better ways to achieve it…

          50. You’re an idiot. People don’t choose their race. Don’t try to lump apples together with oranges. It can be offensive as well.

          51. newsflash: people don’t choose their sexuality. Your homophobic ways will come back and bite you in the tail one day. Your grandchildren will talk in horror of how old granddad could be so prejudiced even in the 21st century.

        2. He had a political opinion of the same discriminatory kind that those who used to believe that black/white mixed marriages was an abomination that should never be allowed. The only difference is that homophobes have for many years gotten away with publicly flounting their unfair, discriminatory beliefs. Well, time is up buddy, time to face the consequences of being a bigot.

          1. No, he had a opinion of preserving the original purpose and meaning of marriage… which had nothing to do with discrimination…

            Same sex couples don’t procreate, they don’t have to deal with accidental pregnancies, being forced to be responsible for someone else’s child, etc.

            Much as you may hate to admit it, even people who are for granting same sex couples the same rights under the law aren’t all for redefining the meaning of the institution of marriage in order to do it!

            Really, is someone being discriminatory to a paraplegic because they provide them with a ramp versus using the stairs or are they just accepting the fact a paraplegic can’t get around in the same way as a non-paraplegic?

            No, of course not and the same thing applies to marriage… It’s not discrimination if there really are differences!

            You might as well complain about the fact only women can get pregnant and describe men as being discriminated against for not being able to get maternity leave, etc. despite the fact we’re all human beings…

          2. “No, he had a opinion of preserving the original purpose and meaning of
            marriage… which had nothing to do with discrimination…”
            …said the people who were against black/white mixed marriages!

            Your analogy to the ramp is just spaced out man! There are some differences between a heterosexual and a homosexual person: their sexual orientation. There is also some differences between a black and a white person: their skin color. But each of these four individuals have a capacity to love another adult person and, in companion with another, take responsible care of children. That is what is relevant and in that regard they are all the same.

            So there are no differences of relevance that would justify a system of legal segregation when it comes to marriage between two adults, either on terms of sexual orientiation or in terms of racial identity. If two adults fall in love and want to make their life together official then they should be able to legally marry. Barring them from that based on sex, skin color, religion or culture is unacceptable discrimination, plain and simple.

            Please google the two words corvino philosophypress and you will find
            a link to a text by John Corvino that in detail answers every claim
            you’ve made here. If you care about the topic you owe it to yourself to
            read that text.

          3. “Your analogy to the ramp is just spaced out man!”

            No, just goes to the heart of the matter… There is a difference from treating someone as a equal from them being able to do all the same things and it’s not discrimination when there are actual differences!

            “Please google the two words corvino philosophypress and you will find
            a link to a text by John Corvino that in detail answers every claim
            you’ve made here. If you care about the topic you owe it to yourself to
            read that text.”

            I’ve read it, but it doesn’t really address every point I’ve made… Corvino mainly is making the political correct moral argument that it’s should be better to try to treat everything as the same to avoid treating things as different to the point of even calling everything the same but this ignores that it can lead to the opposite bias of treating people as they are not!

            Like a native American indian will not appreciate you treating them the same when it means dismissing their culture and beliefs to do so for example…

            Core problem in treating something the same means ignoring what’s different and that can lead to ignoring a person’s uniqueness, personal identity, etc.

            So just my paraplegic analogy high lights the basic problem… it may be a bit extreme example but gets straight to the point… Diversity and simple practicality is important too!

      3. “We should not tolerate those who …”
        NO NO No
        That is the core principal of TOLERANCE. If you believe someone is wrong embrace them and show them to the truth. Acting like a bunch of bullies will bring about equality sure everyone is now an equal As$ hole.

        Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind!

Comments are closed.