here is drugs. And it's the only one of the three (drugs, gay marriage, Cuba travel ban) where ordinary people think their tax dollars are being wasted on pointless prosecution and incarceration.

The point of the Cuba travel ban is to promote the freedom of the Cuban people who are repressed by a communist dictator. The policy may change when we conclude it is ineffective, but this will not be due to changing goals or values.

GLBT marriage is not about freedom; it's about validation. There is no comparison to legalizing pot here -- gays are already free to live and behave as they wish and make whatever civil arrangements between themselves as pleases them. GLBT marriage is more like demanding that the USDA include cannabis in their food pyramid, and thereby endorse the concept that pot is just as good as any other vegetable just to make the users happy.

LOL re: gay marriage, pot, and food pyramid. You nailed it!

So, you are arguing that there are no legal benefits/consequences for those who wish to be legally recognized as married?

In the eyes of the law, a common law marriage, a polygamous marriage, and a gay marriage are all the same because they happen anyway?

I don't get this. Explain it, please.

What are the benefits to society at large from same-sex marriage? Are there any? Its advocates have never been required to cite any.

I agree with the poster who asserted that same-sex marriage is more about validation: it's an attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce social acceptance for homosexuality.

What are the disbenefits to society at large? I honestly don't see why anyone gives a shit. Seems like an easy concession to the left. Let 'em have the gay marriage, and I get to keep my HK.

Illinichief:

What are the benefits to society at large from same-sex marriage? Are there any? Its advocates have never been required to cite any.

I agree with the poster who asserted that same-sex marriage is more about validation: it's an attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce social acceptance for homosexuality.

It could be about validation. Although there are benefits that married people have access to that non-married people do not. <link>

Illinichief:

What are the benefits to society at large from same-sex marriage? Are there any? Its advocates have never been required to cite any.

I agree with the poster who asserted that same-sex marriage is more about validation: it's an attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce social acceptance for homosexuality.

If we're going to use this kind of social-engineering approach to government, we may as well go back to applying the principles of eugenics to the mentally ill and physically handicapped. What good are quadriplegics to society, anyway?

Bentoniani:

What are the disbenefits to society at large? I honestly don't see why anyone gives a shit. Seems like an easy concession to the left. Let 'em have the gay marriage, and I get to keep my HK.

I have yet to hear any reasonable dis-benefits to society from same sex marriage. Proponents usually state some religious reason or they just don't like that lifestyle, neither of which seem reasonable to me.

"What are the benefits to society at large from same-sex marriage? Are there any?" That's an important question to ask, but the answer is rather straightforward: The benefits to society from same-sex marriage are the same as those from opposite-sex marriage.

The point of the article isn't about freedom, but the encoding of morals. Laws in a democracy work best and garner little contention when they reflect morals of a society, and don't work as well when they don't. This is the case whether the morals are based on cherry-picked sound bites from incoherent ancient anthologies (like "traditional" Christian morals), or based on a posteriori deduction of shared revulsion (like our moral stances against drunk driving and family abuse). Drunk driving laws have been tightened over the last 30 years with our hardening moral stance against it. Same for spouse abuse and child abuse, which used to be tolerated if it was kept under wraps, and which is or isn't okay in the Bible, depending on which sound bites you pick. Mr. Weisberg's point is that the pot laws are so out of step with modern morality that the law will soon change to reflect it. Same for gay marriage: Ever increasing numbers of Americans' morals allow gay marriage, especially amongst the younger generations, because reasonable equality for these folks is more important than sexual repression. This is a step back from traditional Christian morals, to be sure, but it is still morals-based. These changes take time... sudden attempts that make the law lead the way are very contentious (e.g. civil rights, abortion, gay marriage), while as we see, attempts that make the law follow the morals are well-supported: sex offender lists, drunk driving laws, and the quiet lifting of bans to Cuba. I agree that the Cuba tie-in was a bit odd, but I suppose he wanted to have a trio to discuss (for writing's sake). But in general we've seen that embargoes and sanctions do not work at all, have never worked, and will never work. What's more, many Americans find them to be immoral, as unwarranted collective punishment. The Cubans didn't choose Castro, the North Koreans didn't elect Kim Jong-Il, and the Iraqis didn't vote for Saddam Hussein, but the sanctions punished the people, not the leaders.

the more i read your posts the more i believe you are a reasonable and rational person.

but what is HK?

Heckler & Koch I'd guess, a gun manufacturer.

Those of you who believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is based upon Judeo-Christian "morality", can you name any non-Christian/non-Jewish society, ancient or modern, which recognizes same-sex marriage? And don't bother to cite the pederastic relationships of classical antiquity which were regarded in their time as completely different from marriage.

Marriage between men and women has existed in all known societies, whatever their beliefs about the supernatural, and whatever their system of "morals".

Legal marriage defines the obligations the two parties have to each other and any children they produce. Historically it has mitigated the economic disparities between men and women. It's not likely to be of mch use that way insam-sex relationships.

actually you are mistaken.

here are a couple examples

same-sex marriages that have been documented around the world, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.[17][19][20]

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[34] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[35]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[36] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[37]

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[38] These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[39] Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius.[40] Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages.[41] By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special.".[42] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.[43][44]

[edit] Modern

In October 1989, Denmark became the first nation to recognize same-sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages.[45] Same-sex marriages are granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[46] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), and Sweden (2009). In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[47]

It could be about validation. Although there are benefits that married people have access to that non-married people do not. <link>

That is not necessarily true. Gays can get many of those same benefits, depending on the state, by default like married couples. Anything missing can be done via legal documents.

For example Estate inheritance. Yes if there is no will the spouse gets it, but this can easily be solved by getting a will. Even married couples are encouraged to get a will as a precautionary measure. This idea that married couples get "extra rights" is over exaggerated.

The gay marriage issue is all about legitimizing homosexuality- that is it. Gays don't just want to be tolerated, they want children songs, and coloring books , and parades... wait they got parades. Speaking of which is there a hetro parade anywhere?