The counter-argument automatically targets non-child-bearing heterosexual marriages as a defacto countenance on homosexual marriage. We Catholics warned of these eventualities when mainstream protestants sanctioned artificial contraceptives.

This gay marriage thing will become the law of the land on the same moral basis as abortion… that of “the rights of the individual“ whereas those rights are granted only to individuals within “protected” classes, identified by the ruling class oerated government.

My point? If the new conservative mivement is unsuccessful in rolling back any of the damage done to date, look for continued new damage to what’s left of traditional values in America.

I find it very disturbing that many so-called conservative pundits have been co-opted by the lavender lobby.

And I think you would have a LOT of support.

Maybe I’m just being optimistic on bipartisanship after my first vote for a (R) in over a decade, but I think this one is a winner and we could put the issue to rest.

I think a lot of Rs would support it, and then gay couples could have most of the benefits and responsibilities (higher tax burden?) of married couples.

It wouldn’t be called marriage, which I think turns off a lot of activists. I am also not sure how they would handle adoption.

I find it odd though that civil unions seem to have been abandoned by activists in favor of the full marriage redefinition.

I don’t think anyone is going to question that same-sex couples raise fewer children. But why does this matter for the debate over same-sex marriage?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry is not going to cause traditional couples to stop having children. And that makes this statistic just irrelevant rather than “winning”. And furthermore, I would speculate that granting marriage will actually increase the number of same-sex couples raising children. By the premise of your argument, that raising children is the good that comes out of marriage, that would be an argument for same-sex marriage?!

There is absolutely no difference between a civil union and a marriage in most states. In fact even unmarried couples can collect most of the benefits and/or force the unmarried father or mother to pay child support or equivalent benefits. The state should get out of the marriage business all together and send it back to the churches and synagogues and mosques where it came from.

I’m afraid the author, simply does not get it. While cogently making points about the nature of marriage, he starts his discourse with an advocacy of “civil unions”. As for the proportion of homosexuals who have children, its spurious, no homosexual relationship can of itself, can result in offspring.

Creating a new arrangement that contains the same elements as a marriage, except for the label is acceding to the left and sounds like one of those “feel good” compromises that the RINO caucus, especially those installed in the order of Neville Chamberlain, who inevitably make deals that are not compromises, but incremental surrender to an insatiable foe.

The Bard of Avon commented on creative euphemisms, although I think an analogy to roses trivializes this issue and I find the aroma displeasing.

If you think “civil unions” are going to be the last word, well then you better check the claims made when that great paragon of virtue, when William Jefferson Clinton and his minions came up with that first compromise on homosexuality a little over a decade and a half ago (“Don’t ask, don’t tell”). Touted as a reasonable compromise, they knew it was nothing more than a foothold on the recently enacted open service rule, by the lame duck Senate with the normal RINO support. It was telling that DADT was treated by the militant homosexuals and their leftist allies as something the greatest of arbitrary and capricious indignities .We aren’t of course, supposed to wonder if Bradley Manning’s exclusion from the military would have prevented the Wikileaks debacle, as he filled his flash drive to the lyrics of “Lady Gaga”, while lamenting the terrible slight of inattention by his partner.

Formal legal status of homosexual relationships is nothing more than a part of the ongoing war to normalize homosexual behavior and force an acceptance of that view on society as a whole. The Ruling Class seems intent on foisting this view on the rest of society, whether they want it or not. If you don’t think it’s a war, then you have the IQ of a DailyKos reader. There are many activists pushing for the criminalization of any speech that questions or disputes the normalcy, morality or immutability of homosexual behavior under the rubric of “hate crimes”. The most insistent envision a world where clerics, having given thoughtful consideration to the morality of homosexual behavior and concluded it is not moral are dragged from their houses of worship in shackles, as the militants refer to heterosexuals as “breeders”, with withering contempt and impunity.

Look, I don’t give a rat’s behind what two individuals do behind closed door, except for the fact I think it’s objectionable to God and it’s known to be unhealthy. Similarly, if they want to call each other spouse, I also don’t care, as long as I’m not compelled to do so-as such I prefer the simple term “homosexual” over the inane label “gay”.

Unlike other private contracts, marriage imposes public duties on society, starting with recognition of existence, legitimacy and morality. Marriage isn’t a status symbol, it’s an estate that provides for a union of complements and primarily developed for the benefit of children that might result from that union. To extend that franchise, without any reason other than conferring legal status is frivolous and abusive of the rights of those who believe that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered. My government imposes an increasingly innumerable set of duties of acquience to the dictates of philosopher-kings and making me pay deference to something I find objectionable is the tyranny that is the hard currency of the left.

same-sex marriage for a repeal of no-fault divorce laws. I believe that the destruction of marriage through a high rate of divorces, in which neither partner publicly bore the blame, paved the way for the same-sex “equal rights” movement. How can we defend the institution of marriage against new definitions when so many heterosexuals have treated it as something trivial?

Same-sex marriages would probably account for about two percent of all marriages “Irreconcilable difference” divorces, especially where children are involved, have the potential for more widespread damage to society.

“About a third of lesbians are parents, and a fifth of gay men are.”

And how are these homosexual couples acquiring these kids? Three possibilities: (a) in-vitro fertilization or some kind of sperm donation, (b) adoption, (c) from a prior heterosexual relationship.

The article doesn’t provide the data as to the breakdown, but in-vitro & sperm donation are probably the most rare, adoption the second most and, the lion’s share I’ll wager, of these kids are coming from prior heterosexual relationships.

None of these gay parents should be abandoning their opposite sex spouse when kids are involved. Nor should gay adoption be allowed. The kids deserve 18 years of growing up with opposite-sex parents so a) they’ll know how it feels to be loved by the opposite sex and have experience with it, b) they’ll have a fundamental understanding of what the opposite sex is all about, i.e., how they’re different, and learn how to relate to the opposite sex. Oh, the spouse is confused about their sexuality, they’re effiminate? Butch? Too damn bad. Society should be demanding that they stay with their opposite sex spouse.

But instead, we get the confused gay parent abandoning the spouse, tearing apart the family, and making some kind of feeble effort at raising the kids, proably part time. Terrific. And you want us to honor this relationship? Have the state sanction it? Only in an insane, effiminate society (like the one we apparently have).

Let them have same sex marriage.

End the tax benefits like the marital deduction.

Expand the dependency exemption (children) and make them permanent as long as the marriage lasts.

I would say the percentage of black couples with biological white children is quite small too, should the feds investigate this?

“the most obvious legal argument for why opposite-sex relationships are different from same-sex relationships… is that they are vastly more likely to produce children” is a straw man. The rest of your opinion piece is about propping it up. The number of children produced by a relationship is totally irrelevant. The state did not create the benefits of marriage to further the population.

In fact, there is no valid legal argument why same sex couples cannot marry. In the same way there was no valid legal argument why mixed race couples could not marry.