Homosexual marriage

[Cecilie1200]

Understood......true...it is a financial agreement. But this should be a finacial agreement between the couple only.....not all the tax payers in the country. As soon as that happens....your life isnt really "Your" life.

The government needs an over-haul....a big one. Its just not working for us anymore.....its tripping us up...and flattening us down. Its holding back everyone.

One problem with financial agreements is that they sometimes come into dispute and need to be mediated or settled by a third party. For all other financial agreements, that third party is the legal system, and so it is with marriage. Also, you only mentioned wills and inheritance. How about child custody, or any of a number of other situations where it doesn't work to leave it just to the couple?

Your life is never "just your life". It always affects other people. That's what being a social animal means. Like it or not, the institution of marriage and all of the people living in that institution affect society as a whole. That's why society recognizes marital contracts of a certain type and tries to encourage them, or at least facilitate them.

I'll agree with you on the government. We could use whole lots less of it in any number of areas.

Child custody needs to be considered separately though. Being married does not make somebody a "fit parent." Even sex offenders can get married, that doesn't mean the state would allow them to care for a child just because he/she is married.

I never said that being married makes someone a fit parent. However, when a marriage breaks up now, the circumstances under which it dissolved are often taken into consideration in the subsequent custody battle, even when those circumstances were not actually criminal. If the law no longer recognized marital relationships as legal contracts, it would also have no basis for considering those actions when determining custody.

That's just an example. There are any number of ways in which a marriage is not just a romantic relationship between two people, and requires a standard to be set by which the law views that relationship. Sure, you could accomplish that by having couples simply sign a legal contract concerning those occasions, but then that would essentially be the same as they're doing now, but with more paperwork.

You also have to consider that the law always will be involved to some extent in marriages, if only because they are such extensive meldings of two lives into one, involving legalities, finances, responsibilities . . . All of which means there's really no way to keep the law from having some standard somewhere that says, "This is what we recognize as a legitimate marital contract, and this isn't."

 

[LiveUninhibited]

One problem with financial agreements is that they sometimes come into dispute and need to be mediated or settled by a third party. For all other financial agreements, that third party is the legal system, and so it is with marriage. Also, you only mentioned wills and inheritance. How about child custody, or any of a number of other situations where it doesn't work to leave it just to the couple?

Your life is never "just your life". It always affects other people. That's what being a social animal means. Like it or not, the institution of marriage and all of the people living in that institution affect society as a whole. That's why society recognizes marital contracts of a certain type and tries to encourage them, or at least facilitate them.

I'll agree with you on the government. We could use whole lots less of it in any number of areas.

Child custody needs to be considered separately though. Being married does not make somebody a "fit parent." Even sex offenders can get married, that doesn't mean the state would allow them to care for a child just because he/she is married.

I never said that being married makes someone a fit parent. However, when a marriage breaks up now, the circumstances under which it dissolved are often taken into consideration in the subsequent custody battle, even when those circumstances were not actually criminal. If the law no longer recognized marital relationships as legal contracts, it would also have no basis for considering those actions when determining custody.

That's just an example. There are any number of ways in which a marriage is not just a romantic relationship between two people, and requires a standard to be set by which the law views that relationship. Sure, you could accomplish that by having couples simply sign a legal contract concerning those occasions, but then that would essentially be the same as they're doing now, but with more paperwork.

You also have to consider that the law always will be involved to some extent in marriages, if only because they are such extensive meldings of two lives into one, involving legalities, finances, responsibilities . . . All of which means there's really no way to keep the law from having some standard somewhere that says, "This is what we recognize as a legitimate marital contract, and this isn't."

I guess I just have a big problem with people being treated differently under the law. The pro-prop-8 campaign commercials tried to lead people to believe that marriage is all about children, which is total BS. The most irritating political commercial I've ever seen was where this little girl asks two adult males (presumably adopted her) what marriage is for if not for having kids:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck]YouTube - Proposition 8 commercial[/ame]

Hmm lets see what could it be for? Love would be one possibility. And aren't we talking about gay marriage, not gay adoption? Fucking bigotted idiots. But I don't even see why it needs to be about romantic love either. What about "platonic life partners?"

Personally I don't think I'm going to get married even though I'm engaged. We'll probably say we're married but being legally married would be a financial disadvantage.

 

[kelly]

isn't there that thingy ohh what's it called seperation of church and oh what is it, it's on the tip of my tounge oh yeah state. and you guys all know deep down in your tiny little grinch like hearts that's all it boils down to. and honestly why is this such an issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Child custody needs to be considered separately though. Being married does not make somebody a "fit parent." Even sex offenders can get married, that doesn't mean the state would allow them to care for a child just because he/she is married.

I never said that being married makes someone a fit parent. However, when a marriage breaks up now, the circumstances under which it dissolved are often taken into consideration in the subsequent custody battle, even when those circumstances were not actually criminal. If the law no longer recognized marital relationships as legal contracts, it would also have no basis for considering those actions when determining custody.

That's just an example. There are any number of ways in which a marriage is not just a romantic relationship between two people, and requires a standard to be set by which the law views that relationship. Sure, you could accomplish that by having couples simply sign a legal contract concerning those occasions, but then that would essentially be the same as they're doing now, but with more paperwork.

You also have to consider that the law always will be involved to some extent in marriages, if only because they are such extensive meldings of two lives into one, involving legalities, finances, responsibilities . . . All of which means there's really no way to keep the law from having some standard somewhere that says, "This is what we recognize as a legitimate marital contract, and this isn't."

I guess I just have a big problem with people being treated differently under the law.

As people keep explaining around here, no one is being treated differently under the law. Every single person in this society has exactly the same definition of what the law will and won't recognize as a marriage. Not a one of us gets to change that definition based on our own personal preferences. It might not be what you WANT the law to recognize, but "equal protection under the law" is not defined as "everyone having what pleases him most".

The pro-prop-8 campaign commercials tried to lead people to believe that marriage is all about children, which is total BS.

Marriage is not all about children, but much of the purpose behind legal sanction of marriage is. What it is not at ALL about is "love" or "happiness" or any other warm fuzzy. God help us when the law starts trying to act like Dr. Phil.

The most irritating political commercial I've ever seen was where this little girl asks two adult males (presumably adopted her) what marriage is for if not for having kids:

Hmm lets see what could it be for? Love would be one possibility. And aren't we talking about gay marriage, not gay adoption? Fucking bigotted idiots. But I don't even see why it needs to be about romantic love either. What about "platonic life partners?"

Feel free to get married for any reason you care to. Just don't expect the rest of us to care about that reason, or to codify it into law. YOUR motivations are not what's at issue. Society's motivations are.

Personally I don't think I'm going to get married even though I'm engaged. We'll probably say we're married but being legally married would be a financial disadvantage.

Why are you telling us this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

isn't there that thingy ohh what's it called seperation of church and oh what is it, it's on the tip of my tounge oh yeah state. and you guys all know deep down in your tiny little grinch like hearts that's all it boils down to. and honestly why is this such an issue.

Put on your big girl panties and deal with the fact that demonizing your political opposition on this one isn't going to get you your way. At some point, you're going to have to deal with the fact that this issue keeps losing at the ballot box because lots of people who aren't wild-eyed, frothing relgious zealots don't like it, either. In fact, I'd say more non-zealots than zealots vote against it, since I really doubt there are that many strongly religious people in any state, let alone states like California.

By the way, separation of church and state has diddly squat to do with this, so you're just going to have to find a different set of smoke and mirrors to hide behind.

 

[xotoxi]

No, I'm stating emphatically that we determine our laws based on what things actually are, which is reflected in the definitions of the words which represent them.

Marriage is what it is and always has been for a reason, ie. the cumulative wisdom of centuries of human history and experience. That reason is also why our laws up until now regarding marriage have been written the way they were, AND it is the reason that the dictionary defines "marriage" the way it does.

Why is it that any reference source, no matter how reliable and definitive it has been considered in the past, is dismissed as trivial and inconsequential by leftists the second it conflicts with how they want to view the world? Do they honestly want to live in a world where there is no reality and language is reduced to meaningless grunts?

And therefore, you determine what "marriage" is based on a definition from a 1950s dictionary, because that definition is more correct then a dictionary printed in 2009. Correct?

How about the definition of marriage from the middle ages, when the woman was the property of the man? That definition should be even more correct.

Actually, Chuckles, I update my dictionary every couple of years, but thank you so much for outting yourself as the close-minded bigot you really are with this cute little backhanded insult. Now that I have you pegged, I can accord you and your posts the level of respect deserved.

The definition of marriage was exactly the same in medieval times as it is today, hence my reference to "centuries of cumulative human wisdom and experience". I'm not surprised, though, at the dearth of knowledge about medieval history exhibited by someone as narrow-minded and blinkered to anything outside of your preferred worldview. Call me when you become courageous enough to hear opposing viewpoints from people who hold them, rather than from the voices in your own head.

WHOA! Where the fuck did that come from?

Close-minded bigot? Because I called you out for saying that gay marriage should not be legal because it is not written as such in an old Webster's dictionary?

Were you looking in a mirror as you were writing that post?

 

[KittenKoder]

And therefore, you determine what "marriage" is based on a definition from a 1950s dictionary, because that definition is more correct then a dictionary printed in 2009. Correct?

How about the definition of marriage from the middle ages, when the woman was the property of the man? That definition should be even more correct.

Actually, Chuckles, I update my dictionary every couple of years, but thank you so much for outting yourself as the close-minded bigot you really are with this cute little backhanded insult. Now that I have you pegged, I can accord you and your posts the level of respect deserved.

The definition of marriage was exactly the same in medieval times as it is today, hence my reference to "centuries of cumulative human wisdom and experience". I'm not surprised, though, at the dearth of knowledge about medieval history exhibited by someone as narrow-minded and blinkered to anything outside of your preferred worldview. Call me when you become courageous enough to hear opposing viewpoints from people who hold them, rather than from the voices in your own head.

WHOA! Where the fuck did that come from?

Close-minded bigot? Because I called you out for saying that gay marriage should not be legal because it is not written as such in an old Webster's dictionary?

Were you looking in a mirror as you were writing that post?

They like to project, especially when they know they are wrong. Pay it no mind, often times the truly close minded are best to be ignored or ridiculed for fun.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

As people keep explaining around here, no one is being treated differently under the law. Every single person in this society has exactly the same definition of what the law will and won't recognize as a marriage. Not a one of us gets to change that definition based on our own personal preferences. It might not be what you WANT the law to recognize, but "equal protection under the law" is not defined as "everyone having what pleases him most".

Explain how gay marriage is distinct from interracial marriage in principle, then.

Marriage is not all about children, but much of the purpose behind legal sanction of marriage is. What it is not at ALL about is "love" or "happiness" or any other warm fuzzy. God help us when the law starts trying to act like Dr. Phil.

Perhaps historically marriage was not about happiness or love, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't want it to be. In fact, there's no reason it shouldn't change and I've seen nothing more legit than, "Most people don't like it." Ad populum = fallacy. Most people still didn't like interracial marriage until the early 80s. Marriage used to be a practical, economic decision for women, and love was a total distraction because the idea was to find somebody to provide for her and their offspring. Today women can be more independent and sometimes have the luxury of marrying for love, sex, or whatever reason they feel like. It shouldn't matter if the gender of the person they're marrying is male or female because it affects nobody else.

Feel free to get married for any reason you care to. Just don't expect the rest of us to care about that reason, or to codify it into law. YOUR motivations are not what's at issue. Society's motivations are.

Reason and justice are what's at issue. A modern example of the majority trampling the minority for no reason except, "eww that's gross (secular argument). Butt sex makes baby jesus cry (religious argument) and will confuse children (irrelevant argument)." The majority is treating a group of people differently for exactly no reason except it offends their puritan or homophobic sensibilities. It should take more than that to tell two people who love each other they can't be married. Gay marriage will have zero effect on heterosexual marriages.

Why are you telling us this?

Giving context for my point of view.

 

[catzmeow]

I think Mormons actually consider themselves Christians. However, you are correct that there are other religions, and also non-religious people, which oppose legalized homosexual "marriage".

You are mistaken. Mormons quite clearly DO NOT consider themselves Christians. I don't think there are very many non-rleigious people who oppose legalized gay marriage.

Nice use of quotes, btw.

Forget to take our bitch pill this morning, did we?

 

[xotoxi]

They like to project, especially when they know they are wrong. Pay it no mind, often times the truly close minded are best to be ignored or ridiculed for fun.

Ridiculing is pretty damn fun.

 

[Sunni Man]

Child custody needs to be considered separately though. Being married does not make somebody a "fit parent." Even sex offenders can get married, that doesn't mean the state would allow them to care for a child just because he/she is married.

I never said that being married makes someone a fit parent. However, when a marriage breaks up now, the circumstances under which it dissolved are often taken into consideration in the subsequent custody battle, even when those circumstances were not actually criminal. If the law no longer recognized marital relationships as legal contracts, it would also have no basis for considering those actions when determining custody.

That's just an example. There are any number of ways in which a marriage is not just a romantic relationship between two people, and requires a standard to be set by which the law views that relationship. Sure, you could accomplish that by having couples simply sign a legal contract concerning those occasions, but then that would essentially be the same as they're doing now, but with more paperwork.

You also have to consider that the law always will be involved to some extent in marriages, if only because they are such extensive meldings of two lives into one, involving legalities, finances, responsibilities . . . All of which means there's really no way to keep the law from having some standard somewhere that says, "This is what we recognize as a legitimate marital contract, and this isn't."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck]YouTube - Proposition 8 commercial[/ame]

That was a GREAT commercial!!!

 

[KittenKoder]

I never said that being married makes someone a fit parent. However, when a marriage breaks up now, the circumstances under which it dissolved are often taken into consideration in the subsequent custody battle, even when those circumstances were not actually criminal. If the law no longer recognized marital relationships as legal contracts, it would also have no basis for considering those actions when determining custody.

That's just an example. There are any number of ways in which a marriage is not just a romantic relationship between two people, and requires a standard to be set by which the law views that relationship. Sure, you could accomplish that by having couples simply sign a legal contract concerning those occasions, but then that would essentially be the same as they're doing now, but with more paperwork.

You also have to consider that the law always will be involved to some extent in marriages, if only because they are such extensive meldings of two lives into one, involving legalities, finances, responsibilities . . . All of which means there's really no way to keep the law from having some standard somewhere that says, "This is what we recognize as a legitimate marital contract, and this isn't."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck]YouTube - Proposition 8 commercial[/ame]

That was a GREAT commercial!!!

Yeah ... it shows how unintelligent straight people really are. Seriously ... if that's all you have for logic I am siding with the homosexuals even more.

 

[KittenKoder]

DavidS, Sunni, and Charlie seriously need to just stop denying it and jump into one pile already ... sheesh ... they are all so gay it's funny.

 

[Gurdari]

I am totally against Gay Marriage and it is not their right to marry. Just like you cannot marry your own child.

Just ask yourself: Who should tell me who I can marry?

If you answer anything other than "Nobody, it's my life, my business" you should seek to reduce the autonomy you have over your own life.

As for marrying your child... sounds like a 'minor' someone you could not enter into a contract with... or even if they were adult, someone with whom your offspring would have genetic defects due to mising of 'too closely aligned' DNA. Is that really your reasoning regarding gay marriage?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

DavidS, Sunni, and Charlie seriously need to just stop denying it and jump into one pile already ... sheesh ... they are all so gay it's funny.

Shut the hell up with that redundant, jackassed nonsense, the only gay people are people like you and any other people who support gay activism.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Explain how gay marriage is distinct from interracial marriage in principle, then.

God damn it, interracial marriage is the marriage of two people from different races[socially and culturally constructed] and of the opposite damn sex, faggot marriage is the marraige of two people of the same damn sex, big, *HUGE* difference, they're not the same damn thing and cannot even be compared.

Reason and justice are what's at issue. A modern example of the majority trampling the minority for no reason except, "eww that's gross (secular argument). Butt sex makes baby jesus cry (religious argument) and will confuse children (irrelevant argument)." The majority is treating a group of people differently for exactly no reason except it offends their puritan or homophobic sensibilities. It should take more than that to tell two people who love each other they can't be married. Gay marriage will have zero effect on heterosexual marriages.

Strawman argument, marriage should *NOT* be changed to specifically suit the special wants of anybody, period, this is what this is all about. If faggots want to love and screw each other up the anus thats their personal business, changing the law and or institution of marriage to specifically fit them and their sexual lifestyle is not personal business.

 

[xotoxi]

God damn it, interracial marriage is the marriage of two people from different races[socially and culturally constructed] and of the opposite damn sex, faggot marriage is the marraige of two people of the same damn sex, big, *HUGE* difference, they're not the same damn thing and cannot even be compared.

And this bothers you...why? Are you afraid that they will force you to join in? Are you concerned that they might have a large picture window without a curtain?

Strawman argument, marriage should *NOT* be changed to specifically suit the special wants of anybody, period, this is what this is all about. If faggots want to love and screw each other up the anus thats their personal business, changing the law and or institution of marriage to specifically fit them and their sexual lifestyle is not personal business.

Does it bother you when heterosexuals engage in anal play? Do you think a man and a women who enjoy analingus should not be allowed to marry? How about a woman who is a professional rusty trombone player - should she not be allowed to marry? What about if a gay couple and a lesbian couple were to split up and marry each other (man/woman, man/woman), and then live in the same house, the guys upstairs, the gals downstairs, and they just have lots and lots of homosexual sex? Would that bother you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And therefore, you determine what "marriage" is based on a definition from a 1950s dictionary, because that definition is more correct then a dictionary printed in 2009. Correct?

How about the definition of marriage from the middle ages, when the woman was the property of the man? That definition should be even more correct.

Actually, Chuckles, I update my dictionary every couple of years, but thank you so much for outting yourself as the close-minded bigot you really are with this cute little backhanded insult. Now that I have you pegged, I can accord you and your posts the level of respect deserved.

The definition of marriage was exactly the same in medieval times as it is today, hence my reference to "centuries of cumulative human wisdom and experience". I'm not surprised, though, at the dearth of knowledge about medieval history exhibited by someone as narrow-minded and blinkered to anything outside of your preferred worldview. Call me when you become courageous enough to hear opposing viewpoints from people who hold them, rather than from the voices in your own head.

WHOA! Where the fuck did that come from?

Close-minded bigot? Because I called you out for saying that gay marriage should not be legal because it is not written as such in an old Webster's dictionary?

Were you looking in a mirror as you were writing that post?

Closeminded bigots are always bewildered when their closeminded bigotry is recognized by others.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Explain how gay marriage is distinct from interracial marriage in principle, then.

God damn it, interracial marriage is the marriage of two people from different races[socially and culturally constructed] and of the opposite damn sex, faggot marriage is the marraige of two people of the same damn sex, big, *HUGE* difference, they're not the same damn thing and cannot even be compared.

Is your implication that if race had not been socially and culturally constructed then there would be a legit case against interracial marriage? Interesting. I posed the question you quoted assuming people were familiar with how the exact same arguments are used on both sides as they were when people argued against interracial marriage. Perhaps not. Here's a historian's perspective (Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation) with my emphasis added in places:

I would argue that it is virtually impossible to understand the current debate over same-sex marriage without first understanding the history of American miscegenation laws and the long legal fight against them, if only because both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage come to this debate, knowing or unknowingly, wielding rhetorical tools forged during the history of miscegenation law. The arguments white supremacists used to justify for miscegenation laws--that interracial marriages were contrary to God's will or somehow unnatural--are echoed today by the most conservative opponents of same-sex marriage. And supporters of same-sex marriage base their cases on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, echoing the position the U.S. Supreme Court took when it declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

In 1948, the Supreme Court of California took a giant step toward ending the regime of miscegenation law when it broke an sixty-five year string of post-Reconstruction judicial precedents and declared California's miscegenation law unconstitutional. Speaking for a deeply divided court, Justice Roger Traynor flatly rejected the shopworn claim that miscegenation laws applied "equally" to all races. "A member of any of these races," Traynor explained, "may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable." "Human beings," he continued, "are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains." "The right to marry," Traynor insisted, "is the right of individuals, not of racial groups." Nineteen years later, in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court agreed, this time in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. "There can be no doubt," Warren wrote, "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

Reason and justice are what's at issue. A modern example of the majority trampling the minority for no reason except, "eww that's gross (secular argument). Butt sex makes baby jesus cry (religious argument) and will confuse children (irrelevant argument)." The majority is treating a group of people differently for exactly no reason except it offends their puritan or homophobic sensibilities. It should take more than that to tell two people who love each other they can't be married. Gay marriage will have zero effect on heterosexual marriages.

Strawman argument, marriage should *NOT* be changed to specifically suit the special wants of anybody, period, this is what this is all about. If faggots want to love and screw each other up the anus thats their personal business, changing the law and or institution of marriage to specifically fit them and their sexual lifestyle is not personal business.

Let me try to restate what you said to see if I understood you. You believe gay sex is gross and that's okay but the fact that they want to change the law and marriage makes it more than just personal business? This is a little more sophisticated than "eww that's gross" but it certainly uses that as a starting premise, which means I did not use a straw man in your case.

You are concerned for preserving the institution of marriage. That's odd because I don't see anything to preserve. "Sinful" people have always been able to get married only for sex or wealth already. This did not destroy those marriages that were somehow sanctified by a higher power. People have frivilous marriages all the time. I don't see the conservatives calling for banning frivilous marriages, only gay ones. Why gay people? Some kind of odd obsession with the sexual habits of strangers? Bigotry? Do they even know? I also don't see how frivilous marriages somehow render whatever marriage you consider appropriate null and void. Marriage is a contract and therefore appropriate for any consenting adults to engage in however they see fit.

As for preserving the law, changing a law can be good or bad, depending upon if the law makes society better. Laws against gay marriage do nothing for society because gay marriage does not hurt society. Or at least nobody has demonstrated to me how it could. Two males or women getting the same tax benefits as a heterosexual couple is not a special right, it is granting equal rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As people keep explaining around here, no one is being treated differently under the law. Every single person in this society has exactly the same definition of what the law will and won't recognize as a marriage. Not a one of us gets to change that definition based on our own personal preferences. It might not be what you WANT the law to recognize, but "equal protection under the law" is not defined as "everyone having what pleases him most".

Explain how gay marriage is distinct from interracial marriage in principle, then.

Let me borrow from Thomas Sowell on the subject of homosexual "marriage", since I could not possibly improve on his words.

"The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions."

Marriage is not all about children, but much of the purpose behind legal sanction of marriage is. What it is not at ALL about is "love" or "happiness" or any other warm fuzzy. God help us when the law starts trying to act like Dr. Phil.

Perhaps historically marriage was not about happiness or love, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't want it to be.

That impractical attitude is the reason why we have such a high divorce rate. However, I'm not talking in this case about what your marriage is about for you personally. I'm talking about what marriage is about for the purposes of the law. And the law doesn't give a rat's ass if you are happy or in love. That's none of its business.

In fact, there's no reason it shouldn't change and I've seen nothing more legit than, "Most people don't like it."

It always fascinates me that people who are vociferously advocating a complete change in society on the basis of "Some people don't like the way it is" consider "Most people don't want to change it" to be an illegitimate reason.

Ad populum = fallacy.

Wrong. If you have a better reason for why society should behave in a certain way than the fact that the majority of the people who make up society want it to be that way, I'd like to hear it. I can promise you that "A small minority of people disagree" is not going to get it done.

Most people still didn't like interracial marriage until the early 80s.

Which is still an utterly irrelevant and incorrect analogy.

Marriage used to be a practical, economic decision for women, and love was a total distraction because the idea was to find somebody to provide for her and their offspring.

I have news for you. Marriage is STILL a practical economic decision for women, particularly if they want to have children. And love wasn't considered a distraction. It was properly viewed as the RESULT of marriage, not the reason for it.

Today women can be more independent and sometimes have the luxury of marrying for love, sex, or whatever reason they feel like. It shouldn't matter if the gender of the person they're marrying is male or female because it affects nobody else.

Yeah, it's a great luxury to have an overwhelming chance of living below the poverty line because you've been convinced that you don't need men and marriage.

And you're dreaming if you think your actions don't affect anyone else. However, you're conflating who you marry with which relationships society sanctions. I don't hold with fuzzy logic and blurred lines. We aren't talking about who you have relationships with or marry. You can marry anyone you like already. What we're talking about is which relationships society recognizes and sanctions, and that's a whole 'nother issue entirely. Any attempt to pretend that the two are the same thing is disingenuous.

Feel free to get married for any reason you care to. Just don't expect the rest of us to care about that reason, or to codify it into law. YOUR motivations are not what's at issue. Society's motivations are.

Reason and justice are what's at issue. A modern example of the majority trampling the minority for no reason except, "eww that's gross (secular argument). Butt sex makes baby jesus cry (religious argument) and will confuse children (irrelevant argument)." The majority is treating a group of people differently for exactly no reason except it offends their puritan or homophobic sensibilities. It should take more than that to tell two people who love each other they can't be married. Gay marriage will have zero effect on heterosexual marriages.

I like how you dismiss things as "irrelevant" based on nothing other than your own personal disagreement with them. You think they're wrong, ergo they're irrelevant and don't require you to address them. Sorry, but no. Also, I will thank you in the future, when purporting to quote the arguments of the opposition, to quote ACTUAL arguments of the opposition, rather than your own snarky paraphrase of what you think their arguments are (ie. "Sex makes Baby Jesus cry"). If you want to argue against that particular argument, then you'd better be prepared to show me an exact citation of when a prominent opponent to homosexual "marriage" said it.

The majority is not treating a group differently. It is treating a behavior differently, and it needs no more than the fact that the majority does not wish to endorse that behavior as a reason for them not to do it. Certainly, YOU have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter which they must convince of the acceptability of their reasons. You are nothing but one voter who has been outnumbered at the ballot box, so why should they care if they meet your approval?

Why are you telling us this?

Giving context for my point of view.

Your little personal blurb did nothing of the sort, inasmuch as it had nothing to do with the topic. Don't care who you are, don't care what your relationships are, save it for group therapy.