Circe

I... Wow, I did not see this one coming.

The Batlord

Am I the only one who finds this creepy. I'm assuming that the middle aged man and woman looking on in pride and approval behind the girl are her parents. It's always nice to see parents passing their intolerance onto an impressionable child.

__________________

TheBig3

Oh no? Didn't think a slick, no-big-deal political shift was coming after a tsunami of public opinion changed?

I did.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

hip hop bunny hop

Let me try the long form. What is not being debated is whether or not same-sex couples have the right to a religious ceremony (they do), whether whether they can enter into binding legal contract in regards to inheritance of property (they can), or hospital visitation rights (which, again, they can set up)... what is being discussed is whether or not same sex couples should receive the same subsidies as traditional marriages.

By subsidizing marriage we are giving preference to one form of relationship to all others. So, yes, personal preferences are very much a part of the debate (if not the entirety of it), and, yes, it does effect other people, as other people are paying for the subsidy.

The traditional argument for subsidizing marriage has been that everyone else in society see's a benefit. Whether it be improved outcomes of children, the higher fertility rate of married couples, etc. The question, then, is what benefit does society see from further expanding this subsidy to same sex couples?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Circe

Increased adoption possibilities for children? Same-sex couples actually being given those equal rights that you're under the delusion that they already have? Don't go pretending that you're defending sexual repression for pragmatic purposes because you're not.

Paul Smeenus

Actually the debate is ridiculously simple. Should same sex couples have equal rights to opposite sex couples. We already know that "separate but equal" is in reality oppression, so any talk of domestic partnership status doesn't fly an inch off the ground. The only 2 possible arguments opposing same sex marriage are 1. Religious grounds, not allowable under separation of church and state, and 2. Tradition "it's always been this way". That isn't acceptable either.

Having said that, this is still going to be a tough sell in red states.

P A N

what i can't get over about this whole thing is the f*cking timing. i'm not calling it a conspiracy (i'm not saying it isn't, either) but it's pretty damn convenient that Obama signed the "Monsanto Protection Act" while everyone was so bloody emotionally involved in this LGBT debacle.

aside from that, as a canadian, i can assure you that most people up here think anyone resorting to arguments based on what god said about it are idiots of the highest order, and that infringing on people's sense of self in any way is just as ludicrous.

there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that being gay is not a choice. there is evidence to suggest that the earth is a cohesive organism in which all constituents are actively evolving to the effect that the organism thrives. so yeah. homosexuals can't reproduce. maybe that's beneficial? this is not even close to the whole of my argument, but it's something that hasn't been mentioned here, and i think it's worth thinking about.

P A N

we should be encouraging gay marriage for f*ck sakes. there are too many people and not enough jobs.

Unknown Soldier

First sensible post I've seen

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Key

That's cuz he died of cancer.