Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[??????????]

Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner.

Yeah, because the only difference in the two ideologies should be the name!

There are huge differences. Real Conservatism believes in lassiez faire economics but at the same time also recognizes that reforms are necessary to preserve said system, while at the same time believes in personal liberty. Fezzy is more liberal than this but really all that I am doing here is saying that the Tories in the UK and the CDU in Germany are real conservatives, while the modern Republican Party is something very different.

That would be the definition of a libertarian, at least in the American sense. The problem is that you don't particularly like social conservatives and therefore don't want to label them as Conservatives. What you want is some sort of watered down Democrat that will kowtow to the left. I can't blame you for thinking like that but just admit that's what you want and we can go from there.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You liberals keep ranting societal change, yet like Ive pointed out these changes have already affected marriage in a neg way.  Adding gay marriages is just another nail.

Such as?

Such as allowing people like Mike to marry.

[Joe Republic]

Whoops! Joe Republic forgot to answer my question again!

You might wish to check again.  Reply #232 on the previous page would be a good place to start.

I am keen to finally get an answer from you, though.

[??????????]

Like I've said before, it doesn't really affect me all that much but I choose to be marginally interested in the subject.

[MK]

Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner.

Yeah, because the only difference in the two ideologies should be the name!

There are huge differences. Real Conservatism believes in lassiez faire economics but at the same time also recognizes that reforms are necessary to preserve said system, while at the same time believes in personal liberty. Fezzy is more liberal than this but really all that I am doing here is saying that the Tories in the UK and the CDU in Germany are real conservatives, while the modern Republican Party is something very different.

That would be the definition of a libertarian, at least in the American sense. The problem is that you don't particularly like social conservatives and therefore don't want to label them as Conservatives. What you want is some sort of watered down Democrat that will kowtow to the left. I can't blame you for thinking like that but just admit that's what you want and we can go from there.

Because people like fezzy are elitist.  

Elitist like republican economic policy and hate republican social policy for obvious reasons.

[War on Want]

Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner.

Yeah, because the only difference in the two ideologies should be the name!

There are huge differences. Real Conservatism believes in lassiez faire economics but at the same time also recognizes that reforms are necessary to preserve said system, while at the same time believes in personal liberty. Fezzy is more liberal than this but really all that I am doing here is saying that the Tories in the UK and the CDU in Germany are real conservatives, while the modern Republican Party is something very different.

That would be the definition of a libertarian, at least in the American sense. The problem is that you don't particularly like social conservatives and therefore don't want to label them as Conservatives. What you want is some sort of watered down Democrat that will kowtow to the left. I can't blame you for thinking like that but just admit that's what you want and we can go from there.

The CDU is not libertarian, they started as a catholic party that hated jazz, abortion and communists during the Weimar Republic. I used them as an example to show how social conservatives can be sane but still stick to their roots and support their "family values". It really isn't hard and it isn't that compromising...

[Joe Republic]

Like I've said before, it doesn't really affect me all that much but I choose to be marginally interested in the subject.

Likewise.  So if something doesn't affect either of us, why ban it?  Why not allow individual freedom?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And even if it doesn't am I not allowed to have an opinion on the issue?

Of course you are, but you'd have to admit that there'd be no further reason to forbid two people from doing something that in no way affects you.

Going beyond the acquisition of equal rights to demanding that a specific word be defined for legal purposes in a particular way most certainly affects people or same-gender marriage advocates wouldn't be insisting that a civil union with the exact same legal rights is insufficient.  It is the height of illogic to hold that defining civil marriage in one way (i.e. as between a man and a woman) demeans the values of those who favor the broader definition (as between any two consenting adults) but that the converse does not demean the values of those who favor the narrower definition.  Given all the contention over the definition of a word, it is obvious that both sides feel that having the other side's definition be the legal definition of "marriage" is demeaning.  So long as the same rights are available, which way the word is defined legally is not something that should be decided judicially, but instead legislatively.

[Lincoln Republican]

You know, it wouldn't matter to pro gay marriage advocates what anti gay marriage advocates said about this issue, or what arguments against gay marriage they put forward.

That's a cowardly answer if ever I saw it.  If you don't think your arguments against gay marriage are being taken seriously, then clearly you aren't articulating them very well, or defending your points effectively.  Either that, or they're just not very good lines of argument.

Gays and gay marriage advocates would always fall back on the tired old lines of equality, rights, calling anyone opposed to their view bigots, and cry discrimination, while putting forward absolutely nothing to state why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Gays want marriage.  The onus is on them to show why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Yeah, damn those tired old issues like equality and rights.  Things were so much better back in the good ol' days, huh?

Given that these concepts - plus freedom - are inherent in our nation, the onus is on people like you to explain why gay marriage would personally affect you in a negative way.

I'm happily married to my wife, and I know for a fact that I couldn't give a damn if two men or two women want to do the same thing.  I wouldn't feel that their marriage would demean mine.  I'd be happy for them that they've chosen to become as happy as my wife and I are.  It's thoroughly depressing that you would prefer for them to be unhappy, even though it doesn't affect you in any way.

If you are basing your "crumbling" comments on my marriage and children statements, then you are mistaken in thinking that this point is not valid, just because, obviously, many heterosexual couples cannot have children.  One reason for marriage is and always has been to bring children into the world.  Only a fool would believe just because there are married heterosexual couples who cannot have children that this point is not valid.  To dismiss this point on this basis is ludicrous.  We all know there are various reasons why some couples cannot or do not have children.  This fact in no way detracts from the fact that one of the reasons for marriage is children.

Why do you not understand that your argument here is logically inconsistent?  You acknowledge that some heterosexual couples cannot have children, and yet you claim that one of the purposes of their marriage is to have children.  You also ignore the fact that you don't need to be married to have children, so this line of argument is entirely irrelevant anyway!

But let me guess, you're going to either ignore this post, or revert to just re-stating your opinion over and over without any new lines of reasoning.  Why break the habit of a lifetime?

As usual, you take what I say and twist it and turn it to your own purposes.

Cowardly answer?  You resort to personal insults because you know what I have stated is true.  You know perfectly well that gay marriage advocates will never accept one argument presented by anyone who opposes gay marriage.  I have not attacked you on a personal level.  But, if it makes you feel good, feel free to mean mouth me all you like.

You take my statement about equality and rights and twist it to serve your own purposes, when you know perfectly well that what I mean is that marriage is not an equality issue and that marriage is not a right.  I have stated before on more than one occasion that equal rights, e.g. the right to vote, do not equate to gay marriage.

I am pleased to know that you are happily married to your wife. 

Why do you take the unfortunate and sad circumstance of infertile couples and exploit it as a basis to refute the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world?  I have stated before that, obviously, there are many circumstances in which married heterosexual couples cannot or do not have children.  I have also stated that these marriages are no less valid than heterosexual couples who do have children. 
 

[Alcon]

Why do you take the unfortunate and sad circumstance of infertile couples and exploit it as a basis to refute the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world?  I have stated before that, obviously, there are many circumstances in which married heterosexual couples cannot or do not have children.  I have also stated that these marriages are no less valid than heterosexual couples who do have children. 

So, in some cases you arbitrarily decide to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Calling his argument "exploitative" isn't a personal attack, while calling yours "cowardly" is.  You still won't address the argument that desired equality should be granted unless it has a detrimental effect on a pre-existing institution (remember the Thanksgiving Analogy?), instead electing to object that it isn't an absolute right.  There's no "right to ride in the good area of the bus" either; does that mean that bus segregation was morally acceptable to you?

And, yea, I'm aware that race and sexual orientation are different,and you believe that sexual orientation is chosen, but -- like the detrimental effect on marriage -- you seem extremely disinterested in proving it.

[Alcon]

Going beyond the acquisition of equal rights to demanding that a specific word be defined for legal purposes in a particular way most certainly affects people or same-gender marriage advocates wouldn't be insisting that a civil union with the exact same legal rights is insufficient.  It is the height of illogic to hold that defining civil marriage in one way (i.e. as between a man and a woman) demeans the values of those who favor the broader definition (as between any two consenting adults) but that the converse does not demean the values of those who favor the narrower definition.  Given all the contention over the definition of a word, it is obvious that both sides feel that having the other side's definition be the legal definition of "marriage" is demeaning.  So long as the same rights are available, which way the word is defined legally is not something that should be decided judicially, but instead legislatively.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that having gay marriage won't offend gay marriage opponents, and offend their definition of "marriage."  Otherwise, there would be...no debate here.  The argument of gay marriage proponents is that, short of an empirically indicated harm, the implicit exclusion from an institution constitutes an immoral failure of service.

The analogy that I keep using (too much ignoring) is the separation of buses, or schools, into black or white groups.  Both groups felt that this was detrimental, analogous to your complaint.  Like in that situation, one group claims an empirically unproven detriment on an institution or on society in greater.  Like in that situation, that group was the strong majority.  I don't know your judicial philosophy enough to know whether you'd defend that brand of segregation in the same way as this inequality.  If not, where do you see the meaningful distinction in offense?

In any case, you keep arguing judicial policy, with both Joe and I, two people who (I'm pretty sure) have never framed their arguments in a judicial context.  It's a little like presenting an argument about why lying is immoral and then having it followed up with "yes, but it's protected free speech!" every single time.  Perhaps so, but not really what we're talking about.  Your arguments are interesting and insightful, by all means, I'm just confused by your intent.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The analogy that I keep using (too much ignoring) is the separation of buses, or schools, into black or white groups.  Both groups felt that this was detrimental, analogous to your complaint.  Like in that situation, one group claims an empirically unproven detriment on an institution or on society in greater.  Like in that situation, that group was the strong majority.  I don't know your judicial philosophy enough to know whether you'd defend that brand of segregation in the same way as this inequality.  If not, where do you see the meaningful distinction in offense?

The distinction here is that unlike the cases you use for analogy, there is nothing to keep a couple in California that have a "domestic partnership" from describing their relationship as a "marriage" when talking with their friends, family, etc.  Unlike buses or schools, the occasions where they need to use the official definition will be rare.

In any case, you keep arguing judicial policy, with both Joe and I, two people who (I'm pretty sure) have never framed their arguments in a judicial context.  It's a little like presenting an argument about why lying is immoral and then having it followed up with "yes, but it's protected free speech!" every single time.  Perhaps so, but not really what we're talking about.  Your arguments are interesting and insightful, by all means, I'm just confused by your intent.

This thread is titled "Gay marriage ban upheld in California".  The only thing that was at stake in the case this thread is ostensibly about is whether or not the Supreme Court of California could overrule the legislative process concerning the name that for legal purposes a same-gender relationship would be referred to in that State.  So my intent here is to stay on topic for this thread.  If you'd rather talk about the legal status of same-gender relationships in general, then I respectfully suggest doing do in a different thread such as the Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years thread.

[Alcon]

The distinction here is that unlike the cases you use for analogy, there is nothing to keep a couple in California that have a "domestic partnership" from describing their relationship as a "marriage" when talking with their friends, family, etc.  Unlike buses or schools, the occasions where they need to use the official definition will be rare.

And how is that distinction so much more compelling than "it's the same service anyway, just in a different location"?  Keep in mind that your burden is to prove that it's not only more compelling, but so clearly compelling that the courts should have none of it.

Besides, you're arguing that the government service should be allowed to segregate, as long as there is no meaningful effect on services, and people can privately exercise what they want.  That dilutes your distinction even further.  The only difference in the two situations is the frequency of tangible instances in which the inequity necessarily manifests itself, which is the soggiest absolute litmus test I've read in a long time.

This thread is titled "Gay marriage ban upheld in California".  The only thing that was at stake in the case this thread is ostensibly about is whether or not the Supreme Court of California could overrule the legislative process concerning the name that for legal purposes a same-gender relationship would be referred to in that State.  So my intent here is to stay on topic for this thread.  If you'd rather talk about the legal status of same-gender relationships in general, then I respectfully suggest doing do in a different thread such as the Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years thread.

The thread has clearly moved on to be more than that, which threads and conversations tend to do.  Even if not, re-framing any moral argument in a judicial context is useless since it drains the original argument of all meaning.  I've been on the Internet long enough to know how message board conversations work, and so have you. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The distinction here is that unlike the cases you use for analogy, there is nothing to keep a couple in California that have a "domestic partnership" from describing their relationship as a "marriage" when talking with their friends, family, etc.  Unlike buses or schools, the occasions where they need to use the official definition will be rare.

And how is that distinction so much more compelling than "it's the same service anyway, just in a different location"?  Keep in mind that your burden is to prove that it's not only more compelling, but so clearly compelling that the courts should have none of it.

Show me any two schools that are exactly the same and I might buy your argument.  Brown v. Board of Education did not overturn the doctrine of "separate but equal" as is commonly thought.  Rather, it found that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."  Hence, the burden is on those who demand that their preferred definition be judicially imposed to show that "separate but equal" is impossible.  With the sole difference being the choice of wording on a few forms, I don't see how that burden can possibly be met.

That's another reason the efforts of those seeking a Federal appeal are ridiculous.  With Baker v. Nelson as such a clear precedent, even the Ninth Circuit will deny the appeal.  While I can conceive of a Supreme Court (tho not with its current roster) someday choosing to address the disparity in relationship rights in some states (especially those with constitutional bans on civil unions or where civil unions do not provide rights and privileges equivalent marriage), that it would ever do so in this case where only which verbage to use on government forms is at stake is ludicrous.  Indeed, if the Court were to take cert on this case, it likely would issue a ruling adverse to advocates of same-gender marriage.

[Lincoln Republican]

Why do you take the unfortunate and sad circumstance of infertile couples and exploit it as a basis to refute the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world?  I have stated before that, obviously, there are many circumstances in which married heterosexual couples cannot or do not have children.  I have also stated that these marriages are no less valid than heterosexual couples who do have children. 

So, in some cases you arbitrarily decide to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Calling his argument "exploitative" isn't a personal attack, while calling yours "cowardly" is.  You still won't address the argument that desired equality should be granted unless it has a detrimental effect on a pre-existing institution (remember the Thanksgiving Analogy?), instead electing to object that it isn't an absolute right.  There's no "right to ride in the good area of the bus" either; does that mean that bus segregation was morally acceptable to you?

And, yea, I'm aware that race and sexual orientation are different,and you believe that sexual orientation is chosen, but -- like the detrimental effect on marriage -- you seem extremely disinterested in proving it.

I do not arbitrarily decide in any case to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to produce children, is, obviously, allowed to marry.  And, as I have stated before, their marriages are no less valid than any heterosexual marriage which does produce children.  The reason their marriages are just as valid is because they are heterosexual couples. 

Your quetioning me about "the right to ride in the good area of the bus" is ridiculous and really not worthy of an answer.  I will, however, state that, OBVIOUSLY, bus segregation is NOT, under ANY circumstances, in any way, shape, or form, acceptable to me.  Besides, the bus segregation issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, except in the minds of persistent advocates of gay marriage, in the minds of the radical left, and in the minds of the radical gay community.     

[Tonberry]

No fallacy, you simply can't answer the question.

Then I'll do my best to answer it for you. The slippery slope is indeed a fallacy, although much more of a benign fallacy than others, since they do reveal legitimate concerns, like yours.

However, your argument provides insufficient evidence to make a legitimate claim. If "changing the definition of marriage" is your concern because you do not like the idea of making homosexuals eligible to marry, then your slippery slope has no purpose. Why worry about what it would lead to? You'd only need to provide arguments for the continued ban for homosexual marriage.

However, if you have no problem with homosexual marriage and only fear where it might lead, you have a real problem. It's quite tempting to keep banning homosexual marriage out of fear for further change, but it's not right. If you believe that homosexual marriage is fine, but group marriages are not, then you should not oppose homosexual marriage and should in fact wait until group marriage is proposed before providing opposition. Besides, if group marriage is ever proposed, I'm sure tons of people who are currently supporting homosexual marriage would leap over to your side, in order to keep marriage a 2-person contract.

Do you see what I'm saying? The slippery slope is a fallacy because you either need to provide real evidence to attack the argument at hand, or you need to refrain from attacking the argument at hand, until the thing that really upsets you is presented--your choice of action being dependent on your standpoint.

Edit: Crap. I may have misinterpreted what you wanted. Well, regardless, my post still stands, because your argument is still a slippery slope and it's still a fallacy.

Edit (continued): However, I take it you just want opinions on where to draw the line? I personally would draw the line after homosexual marriage is legalized. Personally, I don't think group marriage will ever be legal and I'm sure proponents would settle for calling it something else. As far as the people marrying non-human animals thing goes, which is something I've heard elsewhere, animals have no legal status, making a human/non-human marriage impossible. So that's what I think about it, if that's what you were asking.

[Alcon]

zShow me any two schools that are exactly the same and I might buy your argument.  Brown v. Board of Education did not overturn the doctrine of "separate but equal" as is commonly thought.  Rather, it found that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."  Hence, the burden is on those who demand that their preferred definition be judicially imposed to show that "separate but equal" is impossible.  With the sole difference being the choice of wording on a few forms, I don't see how that burden can possibly be met.

Well, I can sure show you two identical sections of a bus.

Say, theoretically, that such a law were up for review and there existed established precedent.  Would you be defending that (the judicial components only, of course) with comparable zeal?  Would you be just as critical of any court that considered overturning the precedent, or any activist fighting that battle on a legislative front?

And, moreover, does such a situation morally offend you?  Because based on the wording following "sole difference," I don't gather that you have much personal empathy for complaints of exclusion-with-implication.

[Torie]

The mere separation via the stricture of law is an insulting construct, which demeans and depreciates those deemed as across a bridge too far to rub shoulders with.  As the court held, separation in this context is inherently unequal, but more than that, it affixes a scarlet letter on those of the "other."

It is just wrong, on a  very fundamental level.

[Alcon]

I do not arbitrarily decide in any case to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to produce children, is, obviously, allowed to marry.  And, as I have stated before, their marriages are no less valid than any heterosexual marriage which does produce children.  The reason their marriages are just as valid is because they are heterosexual couples. 

So, your argument that lack of procreation is a justification for disallowing gay marriage is bunk.  You give infertile heterosexuals a free pass just because they are heterosexual, or you refuse to give homosexuals the same pass just because they are homosexuals.  Either way, your claimed litmus test (can they produce children?) has nothing to do with your opinion.

Either way, how is this not arbitrary?

Your quetioning me about "the right to ride in the good area of the bus" is ridiculous and really not worthy of an answer.  I will, however, state that, OBVIOUSLY, bus segregation is NOT, under ANY circumstances, in any way, shape, or form, acceptable to me.  Besides, the bus segregation issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, except in the minds of persistent advocates of gay marriage, in the minds of the radical left, and in the minds of the radical gay community.     

I'm not a radical leftist, a radical gay, or even a plain-vanilla leftist or a plain-vanilla gay.

And you did not refute the parallel, besides to say it does not exist.  My argument is that the same quality that made bus segregation offensive ("having them in the institution of x affects society in way y, and we want to make policy without providing empirical evidence.")

Your complaint about my argument is that race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing.  But that isn't part of my argument.  So either you're repeatedly failing to understand my argument on accident, or intentionally.  If it's the former, I'm happy to explain it better if you tell me how I'm doing it poorly; if it's the latter, dude, stop.

[Alcon]

The mere separation via the stricture of law is an insulting construct, which demeans and depreciates those deemed as across a bridge too far to rub shoulders with.  As the court held, separation in this context is inherently unequal, but more than that, it affixes a scarlet letter on those of the "other."

It is just wrong, on a  very fundamental level.

^^ This, Winfield -- not the equality of race and sexual orientation -- is what I'm arguing (said much more pleasantly ).  There are further moral arguments, about whether such a depreciation is immoral.  However, since you have already established you find it wrong in one case, continuity seems lacking.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Say, theoretically, that such a law were up for review and there existed established precedent.  Would you be defending that (the judicial components only, of course) with comparable zeal?  Would you be just as critical of any court that considered overturning the precedent, or any activist fighting that battle on a legislative front?

In general, I am in favor of judicial restraint.  That means I feel that the judiciary should give maximal deference to the legislative branch to enact statutes where there is no explicit statement concerning it in the constitution.  It also means that overturning established precedent should be hard, generally either because the facts used in establishing the precedent have changed or been shown to be incorrect.  I am leery of the doctrine of positive rights, especially when applying the Federal Constitution, since while the Federal Constitution lists quite a few negative rights, it lists no positive rights.  I consider the right to marry to be an example of a positive right.

To make marriage a Federal matter, the Court would have to overturn precedents.  Baker v. Nelson is so clear, that a direct assault on it would be practically impossible.  Indirect assaults, such as requiring States to recognize same-sex marriages in other states would also requiring a good deal of precedent concerning the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and would have implications beyond the same-sex marriage issue.  About the only areas that the Federal courts might reasonably touch upon without causing massive problems for precedent are things such as child custody and inheritance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The above is the sort of case I can see the Supreme Court taking up as there is no clear precedent and it is possible that in course of this type of case that it might choose to revisit Baker v. Nelson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't view the role of the government in general, and of the judiciary in particular to be one of trying to change public opinion.  When dealt with legislatively, the decision as to whether to use the word marriage is a reflection of that public opinion.  Having the judiciary force a particular wording is an attempt to change that opinion.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Alcon, it's not worth it.  WInfield is clearly skirting around the issue like a ballet dancer.  He won't just answer your questions or arguments, instead typing long, boring paragraphs projecting all of his logical fallacies onto you.

[Lincoln Republican]

I do not arbitrarily decide in any case to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to produce children, is, obviously, allowed to marry.  And, as I have stated before, their marriages are no less valid than any heterosexual marriage which does produce children.  The reason their marriages are just as valid is because they are heterosexual couples. 

So, your argument that lack of procreation is a justification for disallowing gay marriage is bunk.  You give infertile heterosexuals a free pass just because they are heterosexual, or you refuse to give homosexuals the same pass just because they are homosexuals.  Either way, your claimed litmus test (can they produce children?) has nothing to do with your opinion.

Either way, how is this not arbitrary?

Your quetioning me about "the right to ride in the good area of the bus" is ridiculous and really not worthy of an answer.  I will, however, state that, OBVIOUSLY, bus segregation is NOT, under ANY circumstances, in any way, shape, or form, acceptable to me.  Besides, the bus segregation issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, except in the minds of persistent advocates of gay marriage, in the minds of the radical left, and in the minds of the radical gay community.     

I'm not a radical leftist, a radical gay, or even a plain-vanilla leftist or a plain-vanilla gay.

And you did not refute the parallel, besides to say it does not exist.  My argument is that the same quality that made bus segregation offensive ("having them in the institution of x affects society in way y, and we want to make policy without providing empirical evidence.")

Your complaint about my argument is that race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing.  But that isn't part of my argument.  So either you're repeatedly failing to understand my argument on accident, or intentionally.  If it's the former, I'm happy to explain it better if you tell me how I'm doing it poorly; if it's the latter, dude, stop.

Your very sad attempted refutation of my argument is actually what is "bunk", as you put it.  At no time did I ever state that the ability to procreate is a prerequisite for a couple entering into the bonds of matrimony.  All I ever stated was that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world.  That statement is fact and is irrefutable.  At no time did I ever state that one must have the ability to procreate in order to enter into the bonds of matrimony.

I'll explain it for you again, in case you didn't understand the first time.  Any heterosexual couple is eligible to enter into the bonds of matrimony.  This in no way detracts or disproves the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to procreate.

Now, onto what you are attempting to sway the masses with.

What you are attempting to do is to use the fact that many heterosexual couples are either incapable of procreating or simply do not procreate, and use this as a justification for gay marriage.  But that in no way is justification for the redefinition of marriage, simply because gays have something in common with infertile couples, i.e. they do not procreate.  Big deal, they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, therefore, by your logic, since they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, they should be allowed to redefine marriage.  This is where your argument falls apart.  Redefining marriage is not warranted simply because gay couples, along with infertile heterosexual couples, do not reproduce.   

You may not be a radical leftist, a radical gay, a plain-vanilla leftist, or a plain-vanilla gay, but you are most certainly a persistent advocate of gay marriage, which is the other category I listed of those who equate bus segregation with gay marriage.  Therefore, you fit very well into the category who equates racial segregation issues with the gay marriage issue.  Racial segregation issues have nothing at all to do with the gay marriage issue.  The right to ride anywhere on the bus is a human right.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  Marriage is not a rights issue.  But I know that is extremely difficult for pro gay marriage advocates such as yourself to understand.

[Lunar]

That was a very incoherent three-five paragraphs.


I do want some radical vanilla ice cream now though.

[MaxQue]

Winfield, why marriage is a privilege? That's the central point of your argumentative.