Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Lincoln Republican]

Well 3-4% have come out the closet and then you can add a couple percentage points for the closeted ones. In a conservative country like India the percentage of gays would be something like 1-2%..you catch my drift? Now I strongly believe homosexuality is in-born since I never had to make a choice to be heterosexual. I INSTINCTIVELY like girls. I can't help it, that is how it is. Now the only reason I support gay marriage is because I want to make sure gay people get the same rights as me when they choose to settle down with their partner. I couldn't care less whether the government called it marriage, civil union, or something else. As long as everyone gets treated the same.

OK, problem solved, I agree, call it civil union, not marriage, and let's all get on with our lives.

I am sure all homosexuals will agree with this.

All in favor..........Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye, Aye

All opposed.......

The ayes have it.

Same sex unions will henceforth be known as civil unions. 

Marriage will remain the preserve of a union between one man and one woman.

Case closed.

Great work sbane for coming up with this solution which is acceptable to all.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This solution has been out there for some time.

[Alcon]

I have no problem with civil unions.  I have a problem with the implied inferiority of concurrently maintaining heterosexual marriage and civil unions.  I consider it "separate but equal."  That's not treating them the same.  That's saying their relationships would pervert marriage if they were added to it.  Otherwise, why would object to a change of definition, unless it had a negative effect?

Winfield & CARL:  Why not get government out of marriage?  Or do you prefer large bureaucracies defining social and religious institutions? 

CARL: Any reason you ignored my last message?

[Sbane]

Winfield and Carl, everybody including you two would have to get civil unions. Cool?

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield and Carl, everybody including you two would have to get civil unions. Cool?

No, sorry, I would not have to get a civil union, as I would never be entering into a same sex relationship.

Any same sex couple, however, can have a civil union, however, it would not be called a marriage.   

[Lincoln Republican]

I have no problem with civil unions.  I have a problem with the implied inferiority of concurrently maintaining heterosexual marriage and civil unions.  I consider it "separate but equal."  That's not treating them the same.  That's saying their relationships would pervert marriage if they were added to it.  Otherwise, why would object to a change of definition, unless it had a negative effect?

Winfield & CARL:  Why not get government out of marriage?  Or do you prefer large bureaucracies defining social and religious institutions? 

CARL: Any reason you ignored my last message?

Alcon, it is not as cut and dried as you would like everyone to believe.  No, absolutely not, government should not be out of marriage.  In fact, there should be legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Civil unions should be available to same sex couples, with all the same advantages as marriage, only not called marriage. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Winfield and Carl, everybody including you two would have to get civil unions. Cool?

No, sorry, I would not have to get a civil union, as I would never be entering into a same sex relationship.

Any same sex couple, however, can have a civil union, however, it would not be called a marriage.  

What if the concept of civil unions was extended to straight couples?

[Alcon]

Alcon, it is not as cut and dried as you would like everyone to believe.  No, absolutely not, government should not be out of marriage.  In fact, there should be legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Civil unions should be available to same sex couples, with all the same advantages as marriage, only not called marriage. 

That's not cut and dry either.  Trust me, I've thought about this subject a ton; if it were as simple as that, morally, I'd have no issue.  And as I've said, I consider that unacceptable "separate-but-equal"-ism, ergo not a satisfactory compromise.

I'd prefer it to the current situation, but I can't pretend like I think a less immoral thing isn't immoral...

Why should the government define "marriage," though?  What's your reasoning behind that, when it causes so much strife, forces religious institutions to accept the government's definition, and has a fairly easy remedy?  Just for clarification, I'm arguing for universal civil unions, not just revoking heterosexual marriage and leaving them with nothing.  (Because that would be ridiculous...)

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

[Mint]

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

If that's the case, why recognize sterile couples? Why allow old people to marry, they certainly can't have children. The procreation argument is logically absurd and highlights the baselessness of discriminating against gay relationships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.. Which amounts to separate but equal, regardless of whether you can admit that to yourself. We've been over this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The states which have legalized gay marriage have the lowest divorce rates in this country. Gay Marriage has zero impact on existing marriages, actually I'd argue it would discourage the self-destructive hyper promiscuous tendencies in a lot of the LGBT community in favor of monogamy. In any case, whose interest is being served when gay marriage is banned?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant.

[Alcon]

I'm wondering what data this is, exactly.  And if we showed this data to be inaccurate, would you change your opinion?

Please stop saying I attacked you.  I haven't.  Which is probably admirable restraint considering you still haven't apologized for saying I was "race-baiting."  Or even responded to that.  It's starting to make me think that you want to think the worst of me just because I disagree with you on gay marriage.

You keep making arguments and ignoring the response.  You made the "black community" argument before.  I pointed out that this likely relates to the instability of a single-family home, and there's no evidence that it is due to the absence of both a mother and father.  In fact, considering most of the problems with single parenting are socioeconomic or a lack of time, I don't see much logical reason for analogizing it to gay marriage.  Either way, I presented that before, and now you're just re-posting that same argument without responding to what I said.

[Verily]

Alcon,

Its really very simple.

The fase distinction you tried to offer between homosexual 'marriages' and plural marriages is a false one, as neither is "in born."

What we have is a simple case of those favor 'gay marriage' because they favor 'gay marriage,' and who abandon the supposed principles they espouse for supporting 'gay marriage' when it applies to other groups.

You are continuing to make the assertion that homosexuality is not "in born" without providing any evidence or basis for this claim. Please do so, or your argument is irrelevant as it is based on an unsupported premise.

If you had bothered to read far back in the thread, I did offer such evidence.

Generally, the other posters have accepted that homosexuality is not "in  born."

Widespread belief does not constitute fact. Nor, I suspect, is it true that the majority of posters accept your argument--though a minority who agree with your position might. If you wish to prove your "majority rules on fact" argument, feel free to create a poll on the subject which contains your argument.

(In other news, the plurality of the nation disagrees with you: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27694/Tolerance-Gay-Rights-HighWater-Mark.aspx. Therefore, you must be wrong, because majority rules on fact per your own statement.)

Moroever, I am not inclined to believe that phantom arguments you have supposedly previously supplied are themselves valid. Please restate them.

[Earth]

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Can you prove that the problem is because of marriage or lack thereof? I don't think you can. Correlation is not causation.

...And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question...

You should explain WHAT impact homosexual marriage would have on heterosexuals, or society at large. You offer no reasoning what so ever.

...IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

No one is arguing for marriage to cease, this has nothing to do with the discussion.

If i wanted to slam homosexuality I'd have mounds of ammo to shoot at gays.

Like what ammo?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

Its not about tradition, not everbody gets married and to be honest I most likely will not.  You seem to want me to make the tradition argument.  My logic behind keeping marriage as a man and woman is something that I have stated many times in this Thread.

Logic's seem to be a word you like to use and heres mine:

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Yes, I support "Civil Unions" because not allowing a gay couple to have the same civil rights as in preventing insurance coverages, medical benefits and other economic things that heterosexuals enjoy would be a civil rights violation. This is a valid argument that your side seems to not care about anymore.

And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question

IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

If having chilrdren is better for society (and I agree that it probably is....but I disagree that the government should make it their primary concern....at least not over personal freedom)....then would you like to make having children among heterosexual couples mandatory...because that seems to be what you're saying...?

After all....if they don't have children, they're not contributing to society! Do you think heterosexual couples should have to sign a contract promising to have kids in order to get married? How many should they be forced to have? 1? 2?

Where does this craziness stop?

[Earth]

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Can you prove that the problem is because of marriage or lack thereof? I don't think you can. Correlation is not causation.

...And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question...

You should explain WHAT impact homosexual marriage would have on heterosexuals, or society at large. You offer no reasoning what so ever.

...IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

No one is arguing for marriage to cease, this has nothing to do with the discussion.

If i wanted to slam homosexuality I'd have mounds of ammo to shoot at gays.

Like what ammo?

Don't push it.

I'm getting really tired of you not answering any of my questions. I'll push it until I get some answers, after all, we are on a political forum.

[Alcon]

So you are saying that theres no evidence that shows that children raised in single parent homes are less likely to have higher education, or other socioeconomic hardship?  You are soo content at this gay marriage thing that you have blocked out everything else.   Ive pretty much shot down your miscegenation laws silly argument.  

Um, re-read what I posted again.  That's completely not what I said.  I said that I doubt most of the things that cause single-parent families to be less stable would do so if a gay couple were parents.  Not to mention that marriage is not currently defined, and never has been defined, as something exclusively for those who want children.  So why are you arguing from that pretext?

Can I take your second comment as an admission that I wasn't "race-baiting" you?  sigh.

I'm aware about Jim Crow laws and everything.  I can go into defending my comments about the parallels after my class, but since that starts in a few minutes, I'll just reply to this for now.  Again I wasn't trying to equate them, just test for logical consistency.  My point was not that you should support anti-miscegenation laws, but that some of the arguments you were using as litmus tests would -- taken freestandingly -- defend anti-miscegenation laws.  That's it, that's all.  I didn't even mean to say that your overall view was illogical or inconsistent, just individual arguments.

"change your opinion"  - This is what you are trying to do?

Am I trying to change your opinion?  Yeah.  I have a moral view and I work for that, which involves changing other people's opinions.  I don't want to force my moral view on them against their will.  I want to work to get them to understand it, and agree with it.

I'm not the anti-gay rights demon you are making me out to be.  If i wanted to slam homosexuality I'd have mounds of ammo to shoot at gays.

I've never called you a demon, you're not.  But your second sentence hardly sounds like someone who doesn't have a problem with gays, and it's the second time you've repeated it.  What's goin' on?

[Sbane]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

If its not a religious definition, then why would you care if the government extends marital rights to gays? How does that undermine marriage? What harm occurs if the definition of marriage goes from being man and a woman to two humans? I understand it is not traditional, but who is the victim here? Massachusetts has had gay marriage for a while and to the best of my knowledge straight marriages haven't gone down. The same number of people are settling down and having kids in straight couple households( it would be even better if they didn't divorce each other in a few years). In addition I have no problem with gays raising children. Do you?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

Its not about tradition, not everbody gets married and to be honest I most likely will not.  You seem to want me to make the tradition argument.  My logic behind keeping marriage as a man and woman is something that I have stated many times in this Thread.

Logic's seem to be a word you like to use and heres mine:

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Yes, I support "Civil Unions" because not allowing a gay couple to have the same civil rights as in preventing insurance coverages, medical benefits and other economic things that heterosexuals enjoy would be a civil rights violation. This is a valid argument that your side seems to not care about anymore.

And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question

IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

If having chilrdren is better for society (and I agree that it probably is....but I disagree that the government should make it their primary concern....at least not over personal freedom)....then would you like to make having children among heterosexual couples mandatory...because that seems to be what you're saying...?

After all....if they don't have children, they're not contributing to society! Do you think heterosexual couples should have to sign a contract promising to have kids in order to get married? How many should they be forced to have? 1? 2?

Where does this craziness stop?

No Franzl, I don't think Gov should force people to have babies.  I'm not some right wing religious nut case.  I'm just here to defend the other point of view not "champion the cause" for heterosexuals and making baby's.  Its unfortunate that some people are unable to have children, and no marriage shouldn't be denied to them. Lets be honest when a man and woman marry they plan on having children at some point. You're a smart kid and I'm sure you know that.


Think of me defending this view as a lawyer in court, and stop assuming my deep personal beliefs.

proof? I don't "know" that because it's competely untrue.

And IF it WERE true...why would you support granting marriage to sterile couples?

[Franzl]

and you still haven't adressed my critique.

For what ... you to attack me personally?

Go ahead dude what critique?

The part about the definition of marriage. The same thing afleitch said a couple of pages ago...why should a religious definition of marriage be valid in a supposedly secular state?

I don't consider it a religious definition and Ive tried to stay away from using that argument. 

well it may be that you don't see it as a religious definition, but then you have to ask yourself where this "defined institution" originates. And even if it has been clearly defined in the past, you have to ask yourself whether the reasoning behind it is logical.

Now I won't use the civil rights argument again (even though it's extremely similar, logically speaking) because I'm sick of your race-baiting accusations....but let's try something else:


Why is it marriage you oppose? Why can't you use your same logic for anything concerning gay rights. Because at some point in history....even gay sexual intercourse was illegal...with various penalties. Now obviously you'd say now that such laws are absurd...and that it's good we don't do that anymore, but who's to say that you wouldn't have opposed liberalizing them THEN. Using the argument that something is "defined" or "traditional" is an extremely easy way out of properly debating something. You just as easily could have claimed at that time that we shouldn't even allow gay sex...because "sex was meant to be between a man and a woman....and that's a defined law of nature".....

To make this clear: I DO NOT want to hear your excuses that you definitely would not have used these arguments....I might even believe you...the point is: WHY is the logic different? I'm trying to argue here on a theoretical basis, and it's important to understand the logic behind arguments.

Claiming that one thing is legitimate because of tradition....but then approving reform in something else just because of personal support or opposition to certain laws is quite hypocritical....any yes....logically inconsistent. That was also the logic behind comparing it to the civil rights struggle...It's not as if we want to say gays are suffering the same way blacks did at one point....definitely not....we're only using the same logic....implying that something being a "defined institution" should in no way be used as legitimization for that particular institution.

Things should be debated on their merits....not by citing tradition...or God's will....or whatever else.

Its not about tradition, not everbody gets married and to be honest I most likely will not.  You seem to want me to make the tradition argument.  My logic behind keeping marriage as a man and woman is something that I have stated many times in this Thread.

Logic's seem to be a word you like to use and heres mine:

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Yes, I support "Civil Unions" because not allowing a gay couple to have the same civil rights as in preventing insurance coverages, medical benefits and other economic things that heterosexuals enjoy would be a civil rights violation. This is a valid argument that your side seems to not care about anymore.

And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question

IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

If having chilrdren is better for society (and I agree that it probably is....but I disagree that the government should make it their primary concern....at least not over personal freedom)....then would you like to make having children among heterosexual couples mandatory...because that seems to be what you're saying...?

After all....if they don't have children, they're not contributing to society! Do you think heterosexual couples should have to sign a contract promising to have kids in order to get married? How many should they be forced to have? 1? 2?

Where does this craziness stop?

No Franzl, I don't think Gov should force people to have babies.  I'm not some right wing religious nut case.  I'm just here to defend the other point of view not "champion the cause" for heterosexuals and making baby's.  Its unfortunate that some people are unable to have children, and no marriage shouldn't be denied to them. Lets be honest when a man and woman marry they plan on having children at some point. You're a smart kid and I'm sure you know that.


Think of me defending this view as a lawyer in court, and stop assuming my deep personal beliefs.

proof? I don't "know" that because it's competely untrue.

And IF it WERE true...why would you support granting marriage to sterile couples?

Because they are Man and Woman and it's unfortunate that their Equipment isn't working. You wanted me to defend this institution  of marriage and that's what I did. 

wait a minute....now you're really going around in circles. You're using YOUR definition of marriage in order to defend it. That's not an argument. Try again.

[Franzl]

If indeed the purpose of marriage is to reproduce...as you yourself claimed, then it would be logical to deny marriage to any pair of people that are not capable of said reproduction. Anything else would not be consistent with your "ideology" and would point to your simple bias for heterosexual marriage....(and if you admitted that, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with your view....it's your attempt to "debate" that gets me upset."

[jamestroll]

Why people argue over gay marriage is simply beyond me.

My solution is just to allow civil unions, which are a different name from marriage, and in 20 years, we can change it to marriage when conservatives change their mind.

Simple solution.

[Alcon]

And, now, as promised:

So you are saying my arguments against same sex marriages can be the same argument used against interracial marriages?

Many of them can be.  I'm going to separate them into three classes.  "Class A" arguments you've made, when applied as a litmus test, would argue against miscegenation.  "Class B" arguments wouldn't necessarily do so, but could certainly be used to do so, and probably were.  "Class C" arguments do not apply to miscegenation in any particularly direct way.

Class A
1. Slippery slope -- Non-consenting (here,2): You argued that marriage should not be defined more broadly than it is, because it could lead to dog-man marriage.  Class A because it ignores issues of consent, and instead assumes that any change will lead to a slippery slope -- even if that change has already happened elsewhere, or in the past, or if there is an obvious barrier on the slope.

2. Separate but equal -- This is, no real question, what you argued for here.  In essence, you said that there is no moral violation in granting a group the same rights, even if there is an implication of inferiority involved in forcibly separating them from another institution.  This is a defense of "separate but equal" doctrine.

3. "Forcing the majority" -- You argued here that it is wrong to force the majority to accept the moral views of the minority.  That argument would defend all kinds of awful stuff if you really applied it.

4. Harm to the social institution -- You're arguing that gay households are bad for children, because that's like not having a mother and father, so we should assume it's just like a single-parent household.  That ignores that two people are present, and assumes that the distinction is in the absence of a two-sex household.  The trouble is, that's the sort of tenuous two-degrees-of-separation correlation that can be used to assume that blacks are unfit to raise children, too.  This isn't so much an anti-miscegenation argument, but it definitely is a kissing cousin.

5. Generalized: "Marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman" -- It isn't.  It isn't in several countries, and one American state (or for the Coquille Tribe of Oregon!).  Ignoring that the institution has changed elsewhere threatens your argument that anti-miscegenation laws were not a "social institution" because it had been allowed in the distant past.  To wit:  It's an arbitrary line to draw that historical precedent is so relevant, but contemporary practice in other countries (with gay marriage) is not.

Class B
1. Slippery slope -- Consenting (here): You argued that redefining marriage would be seen as a slippery slope, even to the point of incestuous marriage.  This argument is only valid if your opposition is arguing that anyone should be able to marry if they're two consenting people, regardless of who they are.  That's probably not the belief of most gay marriage proponents.  Whether that fact is intellectually consistent or not, is another issue.

2. Restriction of gay marriage in "healthy societies" (1): I'd argue this is more wrong than anything (Scandinavia is unhealthy?), but the argument that civilized societies do not tolerate interracial marriage was certainly made in the anti-miscegenation debate.

3. "This isn't really about gay marriage" -- I'm not sure this is an argument against gay marriage, per se, but bandying about an issue as not really a moral belief, but rather a part of a larger culture war, was certainly involved in the anti-miscegenation debate.

4. "Was never intended" -- I'm putting this as Class B, but it could be argued into being A.  There was plenty of Biblical support at the time that marriage was "never intended" to be multiracial.  I'm only listing this because it is similar in spirit to those arguments, and arguably an Appeal to Tradition.  I don't think

Now, some of the Class C arguments you made I think are fallacious.  You can't simultaneously argue for a traditional definition of marriage and say that it's exclusively for reproduction.  I think you're essentially arguing an Appeal to Moderation fallacy; the same for Appeal to Tradition.  But those aren't really relevant to the above.

This is such a easy sell for pro gay marriage people because they can blur the lines, however once you actually study miscegenation laws you will clearly see that your case falls apart.  Yes, at one time there where laws that prevented blacks and whites from marrying each other.  One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be inconsiderate to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex.  This is not about civil rights of homosexuals, if that was the case you’d be more arguing about martial rights ( civil unions) and how that can be fixed.

As outlined above, I definitely prefer civil unions, but I still see it as "separate but equal."  It is; you've pretty much admitted that.

No instead you are basically making the case to society to change the definition of an institution to mean something else.  You and others have said that when they allowed blacks to marry whites, that was also a change of the definition of marriage …. Well no your wrong dude. Marriage has always been defined as a man and woman NOT a black man, or white man, or black woman, or white woman.  You are confusing our past segregation laws with the actual definition of marriage.

As I said in A-5 up there, why is historical precedent sacrosanct while contemporary practice is irrelevant?  Couldn't you just argue that the former was ancient history, and the latter was social progress?  That's what anti-miscegenation proponents did.

Far as” slippery slope” – which you say is another argument that was used back during the Jim crow years.  I can see it now “ if we let those negros marry our women that will open the flood gates”  Ahh I see the argument or comparison you are trying to draw.  But it’s a seriously flawed one because notice in that I said “women”.  If this was a former gay man wanting to marry a woman and we prevented it, that would be a civil rights violation.  Gay marriage is not a civil right, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do.  Gay men or gay woman are members of our society just like straight males and straight women are.

I don't understand this at all.  You argue that slippery slope is OK to use, because blacks could marry women...?  You may have to rephrase this.

(continued)

[Alcon]

You have been able to get away with lying about the civil rights era and miscegenation laws.

You're not an idiot, and I've already said that I want to change your mind.  Do you think I'd lie to you to do that?  Seems risky; the moment you notice, you'd stop listening to me.

Chances are that, if I'm "lying," I'm probably just incorrect or misrepresenting, or there's a misunderstanding.  It happens.

I don't think it happened, here.

Saying that the basic definition of marriage has been changed before is a flat out lie.  But it’s typical of the pro gay rights people who claim that a institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment, should be changed because it violates their civil rights.

Again, issues with A-5.  It's very hard to argue historically that marriage was an institution for procreation.  Can you name a single society that disallowed infertile couples to marry?  Any traditional marital vows that focus on reproduction?  Any historical indication that marriage is reproductive more than economic, in an historical context?

Even overlooking the Appeal to Tradition issue, that's a very weak argument.

Here’s another hit to your claims that alot of smart asses are forgetting - Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965, although Civil Rights Act of 1875 had already been passed.  Basically parts of the country (the south) rejected laws that had already been passed.  That’s what the civil rights movement of the 1960s was really about. Blacks like all people had been granted civil rights in 1875.

With all respect to our legal institutions, I don't give a crap about the law.  The law is not morality.  It may reflect morality but it is not morality.  The law has no relevance in my life or beliefs beyond a social contract.

My argument for the protection of the definition of marriage between a man and woman is not the same of defending what race can marry. A Man and Woman were created and theres a reason = to reproduce and you don’t need to be a religious nut to figure that out.  The one thing you can’t deny is that marriage has been a key to raising a child. No community has suffered more than mine from the weakening of the institution of marriage and there’s no question about that.   I know your argument has been that same sex couples raising a child has been just as good, however, The current research on children reared by same-sex couples is inconclusive and underdeveloped. Meaning that we don’t know the effects yet because it would take many years to collect data.

In what way is it "inconclusive and underdeveloped"?