The solution to this problem is not legalizing gay marriage or redefining marriage. The precise solution is to unestablish all marriage.

The concept of "marriage" contains a significant religious component. And because of that religious issue, reasonable people will disagree. Some people will accept gay marriage and others will define it as between a man and woman. But because of that religious component, government must be prohibited from recognizing marriage. Basically, government must stop using the "m" word altogether.

There is a civic portion of marriage which can be distilled out. We've been calling this portion a "domestic partnership" or a "civil union". It's not holy matrimony, it's just legal. It's prudent for government to regulate that. But marriage should be off-limits from government as much as baptisms, communions, bar mitvah's, or pujas are. If you want a marriage, then go see a priest, rabbi, monk, or whatever. If you want a civil union to go along with it, then put in the paperwork at city hall. The two must coexist separately and simultaneously for this debate to be settled.

Yes, that would be a solution and one I believe most gay people and our allies would accept. But do you really think most social conservatives would accept government bowing out of the business of giving its imprimatur to their "holy" opposite-sex marriages? I don't. I think they'd scream bloody murder at the idea.

You must be talking about a "civil contract" rather than a "personal contract", otherwise, Big Government would control your social life like religion does.

I think they'd scream bloody murder at the idea.

Not necessarily, if only the official recognition of marriage was about two people sharing same apartment, credit card account, group of friends and having sex together. It was however not.

It was created as a vehicle to protect well-being of children, and give women property rights in case of being deserted by their husbands. Marriage is about protecting the weak ones. Nothing else.

I'm of course not going into "aristocrats" thing, with incest, power struggles, wife-beheading, husband-poisoning and other attractions reserved from us little people.

It was not necessarily one man-one woman, too. Other cultures accept for example polygamy. Western culture settled however with one man + one woman option as, say, best practice.

The extemists on BOTH sides of an issue will always resist a good moderate solution. The trick is to convince your legislature to ignore them.

But let's not be too hasty saying that civil union is the solution. After all, gay marriage proponents are one part of the issue. What about those pesky polygamy people? Man and dog? Woman and pet rock (yes that happened in 1976)? So simply separating church and state (as it should have been done) won't make this go away any time soon - it will only postpone it. Church doctrine isn't as easily changed as law.

Do you want to live in a world where a man can legally marry his doberman? That's one of the reasons why social conservatives are adamantly opposed to changes like this. They see what they believe to be the logical progression. Social conservatives aren't opposed to gay marriage necessarily (a lot are to be sure), but rather they are opposed to the corrosion of what they believe to be a normal healthy adult relationship.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage - their marriage doesn't hurt me or society. But I am opposed to gay couples adopting or having their own children. I can bend on adoption but procreation is a contradiction to their lifestyle.

I see no reason why gay people, "extremist" or not, should object to this proposal since it would make us entirely equal under the law in this matter. Same-sex couples can already get married in numerous churches and synagogues. Entering into holy matrimony isn't the problem. It's getting government to recognize those marriages. The separate issues - to the very limited degree, if any, that they're actually real issues - of marriage to a close relative, to multiple spouses, a pet or a pet rock are hardly to be taken seriously and at any rate can be argued on their own merits. Anyone who wants that is free to begin their own movement and there's no real sign of that anywhere where same-sex couples have been marrying here or abroad. As for children, many gay couples are already raising children, often adopted children who were unwanted and otherwise would have no family at all. Denying their parents the benefits, privileges and security of marriage hardly benefits those children and, by the way, over two hundred peer reviewed studies have reached the conclusion that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as those raised by opposite-sex couples.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage - their marriage doesn't hurt me or society. But I am opposed to gay couples adopting or having their own children. I can bend on adoption but procreation is a contradiction to their lifestyle.

Um. Being gay doesn't render anyone infertile. And I don't see what the point is in pretending that it does, just because same sex relationships aren't procreative in and of themselves. You aren't as opposed to adoption so I'm trying to understand your thinking here. Do you theoretically propose to limit procreation to only those who are engaged in longterm heterosexual relationships? Or only to those who actually enjoy the heterosexual sex act (ie., straight people)? How would that work?

Leaving out of course bisexual persons, and the many gay people who don't realize they are gay until well after having engaged in longterm heterosexual relationships and having children... why in the world should you object to any person using their own reproductive organs to reproduce?

How many straight people do you know who have no business having kids, but keep on having them anyway? Does their being heterosexual have anything to do with their being unfit parents? Or is there sexuality simply incidental to their crappiness as human beings all around?

Gays are no different. Some of them will be shitty spouses, parents, citizens etc... at the same incidence rate as the straight population. Sexual oritentation has nothing to do with it.

Blueflash:

Denying their parents the benefits, privileges and security of marriage hardly benefits those children and, by the way, over two hundred peer reviewed studies have reached the conclusion that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as those raised by opposite-sex couples.

Do you have an issue with single or divorced mothers?

What makes you believe I think normal hetersexual couples should be able to procreate unrestricted?

"Do you theoretically propose to limit procreation to only those who are engaged in longterm heterosexual relationships?" Yes I think that sums my opinion up. I can't imagine a more normal healthy environment suitable for raising children. As to how to make it work - beats me. I'm entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I assume everyone else agrees with me or that I've thought the matter to conclusion OR that I presume every hetersexual pairing is a slice of heaven.

I do wonder why a homosexual man/woman (strictly homosexual that is) would want kids or even think it biologically possible for him to have children without the use of bizarre science in reproduction. Or whether that man or woman would ever stop to ask themselves why they want kids. I seriously doubt heterosexual couples ever ask themselves that question - but for a homosexual man or woman that question is doubly more important since they are unable to have children without science or legal wranglings (surrogates etc...).

"Do you theoretically propose to limit procreation to only those who are engaged in longterm heterosexual relationships?" Yes I think that sums my opinion up. I can't imagine a more normal healthy environment suitable for raising children. As to how to make it work - beats me.

That's just the thing... there is no way to make it work without dramatically curtailing the right of others who disagree. Therefore we, as a free, democratic society are forced to allow others to live according to their own beliefs and stay out of it.

This is the part that I wish both supporters and opponents of same sex marriage understood better. Nobody is asking any homophobes to love gay marriage. We're asking them to stop trying to encode their homophobic PERSONAL OPINION into public law.

I do wonder why a homosexual man/woman (strictly homosexual that is) would want kids or even think it biologically possible for him to have children without the use of bizarre science in reproduction. Or whether that man or woman would ever stop to ask themselves why they want kids.

Given the fact that it DOES take considerably more effort for homosexuals to reproduce than for heterosexuals, It's a pretty safe bet that gay people who take steps to have their own children have been asking and answering that question of themselves already. Ask any infertile heterosexual couple seeking a surrogate or some other form of artificial fertilization... the process rather FORCES you to consider just how badly you really want kids.

So, that should probably answer your question. I would think.

I seriously doubt heterosexual couples ever ask themselves that question - but for a homosexual man or woman that question is doubly more important since they are unable to have children without science or legal wranglings (surrogates etc...).

I think you are misguided about one thing in particular. Most homosexual people who have their own biological kids, had them or seek to have them the same way heterosexual people do... the "old fashioned" way if you will. Yes ...it is still *gasp*... physically possible for homosexual people to complete a heterosexual act... even if they'd normally rather not. It's alot easier and less expensive to make a baby that way for sure.

But again... it's not something you can just do on a whim. It takes money, some spendy scientific intervention in many cases, and yes many legal wranglings. The very obvious answer to your question why would homosexuals want their own children given all the hassle....? is because they really really want to have these children! Period.

Either you are assuming that gays are somehow unaware of the difficulties involved, or that they have different motives from heterosexuals who actively seek to have children?

I can't imagine a more normal healthy environment suitable for raising children [than a longterm heterosexual relationship]... I do wonder why a homosexual man/woman (strictly homosexual that is) would want kids.

Your failure of imagination isn't an argument for anything. Study after study has shown that children raised by gay parents are not significantly different than children raised by straight parents. Here's a decent review of the topic: <link>

As to wanting children, in fact more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child. (Source: the nonpartisan Urban Institute: <link> )

Having children is a basic biological urge that many (but not all) people share, irrespective of orientation. Some gay people want to be mommies and daddies, while some straight people do not. Nobody seems too worried about the latter, but the former is apparently cause for panic.

What does Marriage mean to the US Government? Last I heard it didn't `support` the sin of adultery.

I've read several of your posts on this topic -- and can't figure out the point you're trying to make on them. It sounds like on this one at least you've stuck your neck out and said that marriage means not copulating with someone else. By the way, I don't think the U.S. Government has a stand on adultry but most religious institutions do as well as many people not associated with religious insitutions.

Still don't know where you stand on same-sex marriage. I guess I'm not getting your humor.

Seems politicians are supposedly disgraced by "cheating". Now it's simply "what's wrong with that"? I don't know where you stand on marriage either, but marriage is not the issue being discussed. There is no requirement that I know of to obtain permission from the US Government to become married. The issue is equal protection of the laws and an acceptable definition of a word. Evidently, many do not adhere to the same definition. I suppose many people would find difficulties with "religion" being defined more loosely (first amendment).

Yes, politicians running for office have been disgraced by the press for cheating. Office holding politicians have only be disgraced and censured for being involved in prostitution scandals, under age sex acts, and sex with staff or others who work for them. All these can be prosecuted for any citizen.

Marriage certainly is the is the issue being discussed because that is the issue of the article! Yes, the issue is equal rights under the law. If you and I are allowed to marry the person we love and want to spend our lives with, why are a minority group denied this right.

I've been married and know that I was required by the government to get a blood test then get a marriage license.

Anyone can define religion in any way they choose, it won't affect my beliefs!