There is no societal interest in religious marriage. Civil marriage is a system of legal obligations that has been proven to provide practical benefits (including billions of tax $$$ saved).

The institution of civil marriage has the following advantages (among others):

1) It reduces the risk that an individual will need government assistance of any kind (welfare, medicaid, services for disabilities, etc). Even when these services are required, the costs are reduced (e.g. housing assistance for two rather than for individuals)

2) Children (biological, adopted, etc.) are more likely to receive adequate supervision, guidance, healthcare, nutrition etc. in a two parent household.

3) Financial penalties for infidelity reduce the spread of disease.

Evidence from states (and countries) that allow gay marriage will prove that these societal benefits are achieved just as effectively in gay marriages as they are in heterosexual marriages. Opposition to gay marriage is founded on irrational premises. Of course, it is the right of any religious group to preach intolerance based on its own traditions. Given the practical benefits of allowing gay cilvil marriage, it is foolish to argue that proposition 8 is anything other than an attempt to institutionalize religion. Those who are anti-gay because of their religious convictions should consider the following: 1) Legalizing gay marriages will create legal liabilities (divorce/alimony) for infidelity. So there will be reduced promiscuity. This will reduce the spread of disease (as already mentioned), but it will also reduce the opportunity for the "recruiting" straight individuals into the gay "lifestyle" [an imaginary issue, but a real fear among many who oppose gay marriage] 2) Legalizing gay marriage will reduce the risk that (self-denying or self-aware) gay individuals will marry (knowing or un-knowing) straight individuals in order to secure the benefits of marriage (health coverage, "respectability", a "conventional" home for their children). 3) Social tolerance and respect do not constitute a moral "blessing" on homosexuality any more than religious tolerance constitutes institutionalized agnosticism. Our country has thrived on religious tolerance, but that does not mean that evangelical Christians are prohibited from trying to convert others to their faith, or that they are prohibited from teaching their children that (for example) Hinduism and its iconography should be seen as sinful polytheism and idolatry. In the same way, a Jewish family can teach its children that Christians worship a false messiah... And so on and so on..

Of course, it is the right of any religious group to preach intolerance based on its own traditions.

Violent protests, destruction of property, and the general hostility the pro-gay marriage groups have shown in recent weeks towards churches and the black community makes a weak argument. To accuse religious groups of intolerance when the gay community shows their own intolerance of religion is a bit ironic.

Opposition to gay marriage is founded on irrational premises.

Just because you can't understand why they believe what they believe doesn't make it irrational.

Given the practical benefits of allowing gay cilvil marriage, it is foolish to argue that proposition 8 is anything other than an attempt to institutionalize religion.

What societal benefits does gay marriage provide that hetro does not? None. your 3 examples are absurd assumptions based on pixie dust. Marriage does not reduce promiscuity, gay self awareness can happen after straight marriage, and this is not about tolerance. There is plenty of tolerance. Mainstream movies, TV shows, music, magazines- there is a lot of tolerance. What there isn't is moral acceptance. Gay groups blame this on "society" but that is bullshit because the pro-gay agenda is well accepted in the media, where as conservatism and religion are not. Gays now blame religion, but there are many non-religious people that do not like gay marriage. This disgust could be as simple as a natural biological aversion to homosexuality. Homosexuality will always be seen as either a biological defect if it is not a choice or as sexual deviancy if it is a choice and no court will ever be able to overturn that.

Geez Gunsmoke, And black slavery will last a thousand years and women will always be seen as inferior to men and Indians will always be confined to the reservation and so on and so on.

I don't believe putting calling certain religious groups bigoted and intolerant makes a gay person a hypocrite. I find acts of violence against churches morally reprehensible, and anyone who engages in these acts is a hateful coward. Crying intolerance while doing this is hypocritical. It also is hypocritical when certain straight people claim acting on the word of God and attack innocent people simply because they're gay (I've seen it happen firsthand). At the end of the day, bigotry and hatred are wrong, and they exist on both sides of the fence. If you don't lump every gay person in with the lunatics who can't argue their point in a civil manner, I'll show you the same courtesy.

not just grammar, anticipation and judiciousness discussing the common angles, moves, and positions, but it's also nice in style. Not too mean, or deprecating, but clearly out to refute!

I'll take issue, though, with point 2, and a point you don't discuss.

Re 2: Marriage will perhaps decrease adoption by gay parents and increase assisted reproduction methods that result in children missing one or other of their biological parents. Kids have a prima facie right to be raised by both mom and dad, and gay marriage will validate to some degree the idea that sexual orientation trumps kids rights. I think a kid's right to be raised by both parents trumps the right to make a kid with the intention to depriving him or her of one or another parent. (btw, I think intentionally making kids with donor egg and sperm is wrong for heteros too for the same reason, and think lots of folks would vote to end unchecked use of those reproductive options if given the chance)

Gay marriage will takes us down a slippery slope to marriage chaos! You didn't address this one, but there are some scholars who see the social experiments in the Netherlands as leading down that slope, as activists over there (if you're here in the US) are already arguing in court that no substantial differences exist to limit marriage rights to heteros, gays, lesbians. Polygamists, polyandrists, and animal "lovers" must also be admitted.

While not too many folks will probably ever want to marry their sheep or cow, or to marry 6 friends, the worry that no legal principle will disallow it once gay marriages are in place should be taken seriously.

If kids rights aren't the main determinant of who can marry, we get all these social innovations ... they increase freedom, which I admit is a good, but they mess up a kid's right to see themselves in the bones of his or her parents, and enjoy the security and placement of biological heritage too.

ModMod;

In the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia in the plainest of words, the Court held:

• Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

While it is not for everyone and should not be limited to straight couples or same race couples, it should also be seen as the lifelong shelter so many of us choose to protect us from the injustices of forces outside our loving marriages. We find solace, nurturing, protection, sanity, forgiveness, and romance in marriage. I am sad for those poor souls who would want marriage but cannot find the right mate. But I respect any person who chooses or prefers to reject the idea of marriage. Many of my friends, after devastating divorces, for example, have concluded "It's just not for me." I assume they are correct.

Fighting for same sex marriage should not entail warnings about how useless it can be in its worst forms. Everyone knows about the pitfalls. But it is the hopeful chance to enjoy the "fundamental right" to pursue happiness that should be afforded to all Americans, gay and straight.

• As I have written, marriage is as American as Mom, Mom, and Apple Pie.

The marriage bed conjures up the warmth and safety of two bonded souls. Two married people walking and holding hands, with or without children, conjures up the need to be part of a family defined in any special way we want. And the exchange of rings and vows represents our most vulnerable selves and our deepest hope for the loyalty from the precious chosen one.

Marriage isn't about dangers, legal liabilities, promiscuity, government assistance, divorce rates, or even religion. It is for many of us our only shelter from the world with a dear and loyal heart. It is a fundamental right in a free society and is among the most important reasons to fight for freedom.

For some reason, the pro-gay activists are determined to make everyone love their detestable lifestyle. They are no longer content with tolerance. They don't go about their businesses just as heteros do; they will proclaim in gay pride marches, and call you "homophobic" simply because you do not actively support their strange choice of sexuality. They have gone so far as to try to remove certain passages from the bible, because those passages spoke against homosexuality.

They will shout "tolerance" when they remain as bigoted as ever. Never mind that they already have the freedom to do whatever they want in their bedrooms. They are determined to force us all to accept, not just the homosexuals, but homosexuality itself. They want us all to see this repulsive lifestyle as an attractive alternative to heterosexual lifestyle. They want it taught in schools, churches and everywhere that people gather.

I wonder if the gay people have ever asked what is likely to happen to the human race if everyone becomes gay?

ddave:

For some reason, the pro-gay activists are determined to make everyone love their detestable lifestyle. They are no longer content with tolerance. They don't go about their businesses just as heteros do; they will proclaim in gay pride marches, and call you "homophobic" simply because you do not actively support their strange choice of sexuality. They have gone so far as to try to remove certain passages from the bible, because those passages spoke against homosexuality.

They will shout "tolerance" when they remain as bigoted as ever. Never mind that they already have the freedom to do whatever they want in their bedrooms. They are determined to force us all to accept, not just the homosexuals, but homosexuality itself. They want us all to see this repulsive lifestyle as an attractive alternative to heterosexual lifestyle. They want it taught in schools, churches and everywhere that people gather.

I wonder if the gay people have ever asked what is likely to happen to the human race if everyone becomes gay?

The last time I looked the bible was not a valid authoritative text in regards to the basis for laws and constitutional doctrine in the USNA. Editing said religious texts has been the modus operandi of the agenda driven since Ezra bothered to write anything down. By the same token, the government cannot tell a religious sect what doctrine they can choose to follow, so if your cult doesn't believe in homosexuality you have nothing to fear from the government trying to enforce otherwise.

Homosexuality certainly precedes the concept of monotheism and extends to numerous examples in nature. I would posit to you that, if the world was created, homosexuality was an intended function of creation by the creator regardless of what the agenda driven editors of religious texts wish to write. It is completely natural. If it is not your nature, no problem. Where is your beef? As no one would certainly expect you to be something you are not. That is where things are unnatural, being something you are not. Teaching children tolerance of ALL kinds is hardly an agenda to induct.

Your last comment is by far the most ridiculous as statistically less than 20% are homosexual and that still does not exclude the ability to procreate.

The Bible had religious men who were polygamists. Yay, polygamy!

Nature is rife with examples of animals devouring their young! Yay for that!

What else ya got...

npr1:

The Bible had religious men who were polygamists. Yay, polygamy!

Nature is rife with examples of animals devouring their young! Yay for that!

What else ya got...

npr1:

The Bible had religious men who were polygamists. Yay, polygamy!

Nature is rife with examples of animals devouring their young! Yay for that!

What else ya got...

The bible such as it is also ignores lesbianism completely. So it is a gender specific prohibition on homosexuality biblically. So to be consistent you would think those who adhere to biblical validity as endorsers of lesbian marriage.

You actually think you've found a loophole? Silly person.

Brilliant response...I'm with you 100%.

npr1:

You actually think you've found a loophole? Silly person.

Regardless, "the bible" in any form is not the absolute authroity and basis for restriction of constitutionally recognised rights and laws based on those rights. If one believes whatever mis-edited version of mythology from a bunch of middle eastern nomadic sheep fuckers and do not recognise X for some misconceived archaic reason it is their right. However it is NOT their right to impose the same restriction based on belief onto others. Furthermore restrictions dimininsh and errode everyone's rights not just those that are excluded.

More importantly, there's no rational basis FOR gay "marriage".

America is now Multicultural. As desired by pro immigrant types. Various cultures have different system, beliefs, social survival stratigies. Somedhow we must reorganise our government by society, so each society can be free to express itself and deveop fully. We can no longer have one government, we need multiple governments, one for each seperate society. One society can have honosexual marriages. Another society can be polygamous. Another can require women to wear veils. Another can require men to be subserviant to women, another can be just the opposite, another can be the sexes are equal, a fourth catholic, a fifth Hindu...

Then everybody is free, and if some of these different societies are wrong or evil in your book, it has nothing to do with you. Don't interact with them, stay among your own people.