NCB

I lied. Couldnt resist this softball.

Buddism:



Hindu
African religions dont take to homosexuality to kindly either.

Look up for a response

__________________

Willravel

Buddhism has absolutely no effect on western society as a whole. The same can't be said of Christianity, Judism, and Islam.
This religon does have far reaching effects across India, which is why I mentioned before that it's harder to come out of the closet in India than in San Francisco.

I wish people would read the whole thread.

NCB

Nice backpedal, but too bad your implication was that Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity were the primary religions that were oppossed to homosexuality. You swung and missed.

__________________

Gilda

I wanted to point out that whatever any religion has to say about marriage is absolutely irrelevant to the issue. This is about civil marriage. Religious marriage is a subject for the various religions to deal with internally as they see fit. This is about a contract, a legal arrangement, and should be discussed on that basis.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Willravel

It's not a backpedal. AGAIN, IN THE US, THE PLACE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD, THE REASON THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS TREATED AS BEING WRONG IN ANY WAY COMES FROM CHRISTIANITY, JUDISM, AND ISLAM. Hinduism, like Buddhism, has almost no effect on our society.

The reason that some people are against the civil marriage of homosexuals in the US is because of some sense of religous obligation. There is no other reason, and there is no excuse.

dc_dux

These organizations recognize that gay and lesbian parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, and that children thrive in gay- and lesbian-headed families.

American Academy of Family Physicians
The AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation. (2002) (2003)
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/p.../children.html

Child Welfare League of America
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) affirms that lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.
http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

American Psychological Association
The results of existing research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents and children of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform: common sterotypes are not supported by the data.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Also: American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and National Association of Social Workers.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

NCB

Their "research" has been completely refuted by this in depth study:

__________________

Psycho Dad

What does that have to do with cost of admission to the Juarez donkey show? Many religions are against people eating pork. Should my wife and I not be afforded equal insurance, Social Security and other benefits due to the BLT we had for lunch? Beyond thou shall not kill, steal etc. religion is a poor basis for laws that everyone should live by IMHO.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

FoolThemAll

Do you have any research to back up your opposing claim? 3000 years of heterosexual parents may indicate that mother-father is generally a good way to go, but it does nothing to indicate the inferiority of mother-mother or father-father.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

highthief

I disagree.

Personally, I think a multivariate approach that examines genetics, hormonal exposure, upbringing, choice, and other factors to determine why some people have a particular sexual orientation is more likely to yield fruit.

I think maybe you don't have a good handle on the science.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

dc_dux

One "study" by less than objective researchers and never submitted for peer review and only published in the journal of a religious institution is more credible and authoritative than the POLICY (not just research) of six professional non-partisan, non-biased organizations that represent the cross-section of medical and social work?

Sorry, NCB...only in your world.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ratbastid

Notice the contortions that the right has to go through in order to put up the facade of winning something--nay, even, the facade of participating in the discussion.

Will didn't say the Abrahamic religions were the primary religions that were opposed to homosexuality, and all your ranting about Buddhism and Hindu is nothing but a troll. What he said was that the anti-gay sentiment in our country is based in the anti-gay sentiment of the Abrahamic religions. It may well be based in other religions in other countries--that's not what he was saying.

The bottom line is, the belief that homosexuality is wrong is fundamentally a religious one. It is inappropriate for our country or any state to make law based on religion. In any modern society, a concern for civil rights always trumps a concern based in religious morality.

MuadDib

Sorry, but that "in depth" study is not a study at all. It's a research critique and it's completely generalized at that. It isn't critiquing specific research done by the institutions named and, moreover, the problems it has with the research often just don't apply. Anyone who has ever done scientific social research knows that there is no such thing as a perfect study. There is no perfect random & representative sample, there is no way to prevent people from dropping out or not completing the study, there is no perfect lab setting, and so on and so on. The question that is important is if there imperfections in every study are so great as to remove the internal and/or external validity of the study. Whether the answer is "yes" or "no" its still part of the "research loop". That is why more than one study is done under different conditions to see if the results of the previous studies still hold up. And you know what? In this case they do. In what cases doesn't it hold up? In the same situations as heterosexual households. Ex. abusive, negligent, split, or generally emotionally unstable households.

Now back to the marriage issue, which is seperate from (but related to) the parenting issue that we've gotten side-tracked on. We are talking about equal, civil rights here. These are distinguishable from religious rights (I think that's been adequately covered) and a sweeping libertarian freedom claim. The latter is what seperates it from polygamy and incest. The civil rights, policy argument here is not that anyone should be allowed to marry as many people as they want regardless of age or involvement. While that is a fine philosophical notion, when it gets down to it most people aren't willing to stand by everything that implies. However, the civil rights argument is that homosexuals are entitled to the same legal recognition of their arrangement as heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that polygamy doesn't fit in with the legal manner in which marriage is constructed. I'm not talking about social taboos or that people thought/think its not right/unnatural. What I am talking about is the legal institution of marriage is only constructed to deal with two people in a relationship and the law isn't prepared to deal with varying numbers. Maybe that's a deficiency in the law and ought to be corrected, but nonetheless a lot of legislative work would need to be done to bring polygamy into the legal fold. With incest the story is also legally complicated because of the structure of legal relations, sister/cousin/daughter/wife complicates the process of legal authority, estate control, inheritance, etc. Moreover, both polygamy & incest tend to be exploitive in that they occur between an adult and a legal infant (under the age of majority). Out of this arises the problem of the rights of one of the member of that relationship possibly being harmed. That is not a concern in homosexual relationships. In these relationships there are still the same protections on the rights of partners, they fit into our legal structure that is mostly gender neutral, and which, in the end, is not an issue of condoning any type of relation but about the law not ignoring any particular person or group of people based arbitrarily upon an otherwise legal sexual practice.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Lady Sage

It will never cease to amaze me how many people would rather have their panties in a twist than relax and let go of something that doesnt even play a role in their personal lives.

If you are against homosexual marriage dont marry a homosexual. Otherwise deal with it.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

ratbastid

Really. It's not like I'll wake up one day and say, "Oh my god! My marriage is now meaningless! Marriage configurations other than one man and one woman are possible! Sorry, sweetheart--it's over. I can't love you anymore, because now gay people can have the same sort of relationship that you and I have."

Totally freaking absurd.

Infinite_Loser

It's also totally freaking absurd that you're using a straw man argument. No one here has said any of what you're implying. Nice try, though.

If you don't like the fact that there are people who oppose gay marriage you could always, I dunno', not read our replies

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

ratbastid

Okay, so say more about how gay marriage "undercuts the foundation of society". In my view of things, that statement is patently indefensible. How does a gay couple getting married hurt me in the slightest?

pig

You know, I was just about to point out that this entire thread is now a simple repetition of the same arguments, but this last point could be useful. Can either IL or NCB, or really anyone else, explain how gay marriage would fundamentally change the building blocks of our society. Hear Hear, I second the motion that el bastid did put forth. Roberts rules of order and all that. If I could be so bold, maybe something that's not a one-liner, but an actual real deal Holyfield response.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Infinite_Loser

I don't think I've ever said that

Anywho, the statement "If it doesn't hurt me, I don't care" is fundamentally flawed as it's naturally irrefutable and evasive as it doesn't address the main point. The majority of laws in effect today have no direct, negative consequences on you; That doesn't mean that they should be rescinded nor does it mean that there's isn't a good reason that they're in place.

How does a gay couple not getting married hurt you in the slightest? See? That argument sounds just as ridiculous as your argument does.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

pig

It does if you're gay and in a relationship. Hi Gilda

I'm not going back through and re-reading all the posts in this thread, but as I can tell, the only argument that is left standing is the notion that gay marriage seeks to "redefine marriage" and that somehow this "redefinition" process is directly harmful to American society. I do not understand this concept. Please explain.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

Why do you think laws exist? They exist to protect. They protect people from other people and they protect people from buisnesses and the government. Some even protect people from animals or cars. Who does banning gay civil unions protect?
How does a gay couple not getting married hurt me? Simple!

Infinite_Loser

But you're not gay and in a relationship. Just as it doesn't hurt you if gay marriage is legalized it doesn't help you, either. Therefore, your argument is flawed.

I can't explain something I never said.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Frosstbyte

Then please, for the sake of everyone in this thread, what IS it that you have said, since what you just said you didn't say is the only thing I can come up with as the primary thread of argument against gay marriage that we have here.

The bedrock ideal of this country is equality of opportunity. We teach it to every child, we say it in the pledge of allegiance, we go on and on about it. It hasn't always worked, but it has been an omnipresent force in American culture and politics. Nothing is different between the gay rights movement and the black civil rights movement, and I feel very secure in thinking that the history books will agree with me on that.

To echo will's closing quotation:

pig

Which argument of mine is flawed? Are you postulating that if it doesn't directly hurt me, I shouldn't be concerned about it? Ok.

Other things I am not:

Black.
Asian.
Hispanic.
Female.
Christian.
Jewish.
Muslim.
Hindu.
Buddhist.
Shinto.
Zoroastrian.
European.
Ennuit.
Race car driver.
Lesbian mulatto touch-typist.

Are you of the opinion that I shouldn't care if laws are passed denying any or all of these groups the same privaleges of straight white heterosexual men, because I happen to be a straight white heterosexual man? That sort of seems like a very plausible interpretation of what you're saying.

But really, most importantly, we now have a third for the motion. Either yourself (although of course, you never said it) or maybe NCB is up to bat.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

dc_dux

Many federal (and state) policies and laws are not enacted to benefit the majority, but to protect the minority.

The fact that provding comparable benefits to gay couples does not impact you (who opposes it) or me (who supports it) in a postive or negative manner does not make an argument in favor of such a policy flawed.

What you and NCB have failed to articulate is how such a policy or law would hurt the majority, and thus the country (leaving aside NCB's baseless arguments about family stability and a gay agenda in sex ed.)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i'll try this one more time.

in one of my earlier posts that fell by the wayside is tried to outline infinite loser's logic: it seems to me that he operates with some conception or another of natural law theory that he arbitrarily maps onto the american legal system. so you have certain ways of grouping, certain categories, that from his viewpoint must remain static because they correlate to this "natural law" assumption.

the problem is not just that this natural law business is arbitrary--and anyone who has looked at this kind of thinking can see that it is little more than a mapping onto secular terms of basically religious norms---but more that his claims cut back and forth without being up front about what they are doing.

here is something like the series of claims.

1. the american legal systems classifications concerning marriage are strangely unique amongst all classifications that the system relies upon because, unlike them, it is not defined and redefined through practice, through the history of the system itself as it reacts to changes in the context within which it operates. explanation: for infinite loser, the notion of marriage is a natural law category. breaking this down: il approves of the rightwing redefinition of marriage as it is emerging through the controversy about gay marriage. but because he position about marriage is also routed through natural law, it follows that he has no choice but to pretend that the conservative redefinition of marriage is in fact not a redefinition at all.


claims 2: when it suits tactical purposes (cut one) il will concede changes in other categories (so as to avoid being lumped in with segregationists in the early 1960s who reverted to this same kind of argument to legitimate their positions) but (cut two) will nonetheless argue that marriage is a natural law category and so should not be redefined in any way.

claim 3: at this time, the category marriage is defined in one direction and there are no negative implications of this because the category is as it is. any category operates more by exclusion than by inclusions so whaddya worried about? if you want categories, you have to accept exclusions. as a statement about logical categories, this makes sense, but as a statement about categories within the american legal system, it doesnt---simply becaue it treats categories as static and so ignores the basic constituitve feature of the american common law tradition, which is its fluidity (hedged round by a continual reinterpretation of the constitution)

inifinite loser's logic is blurry is you push at it, but these blurry claims are advanced wrapped up in the discourse of logic--except that he never actually discloses the assumptions that shape his own position (which would be typical of a natural law type argument--why disclose? its nature, damn it...)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

JustJess

Roachboy, I think you're probably right....

Infinite Loser and NCB: Let me assess things further by going down the list of typical arguments against gay marriage.

1. It will ruin marriage as we know it.
Actually, Marriage as we knew it is already ruined. As has been stated numerous times, we already have a 48% divorce rate. Gay people certainly can't fuck it up worse than that, can they? Leading us to the Pro-camp's claim:

A. Gay marriage won't screw up marriage - how would someone else's marriage affect you? You're not married to them! Leading to Against-Camp's next salle:

2. If Gay marriage won't hurt anyone else, it won't help you, either, since you're straight. What do you care? Ahem, see Pro-Camp's next point:

B. We're not saying that gay marriage will help US in particular (except Gilda, of course). We're saying that it is wrong to limit the civil rights of any group of people, and marriage is a CIVIL right (not just a religious one). We want equal rights for all, and all rights for all, not just those we like.

3. Against-Camp's next point: marriage is for having babies, and gay people can't do that without a lot of help. It's not "natural". Leading to Pro-camp's point C:

C. Lots of hetero relationships do not result in children. By choice, and by natural occurence of inability to have children. Yet, they get to be married and enjoy all the civil rights associated with marriage.

Further, lots of hetero couples need a lot of medical/social help to have children. (I have a few friends who have gone down that road.) "Naturally" they should not be able to, but due to advances in science or the ability to adopt, they do have children. But they're allowed to be married and enjoy those civil benefits. Thus there is no biological reason for gay people to not be married with or without children (of one of them, or adopted).

Next! Against-Camp's #4:

4. Gay people are only 3-5% of the population. Why should they make the rest of us change what we think marriage should be? It's always blah-blah-blah special interest groups. Majority rules!

D. In terms of who we elect, yes. What products stay in business, yes. But for civil rights? No. All people must be treated equally under the law of the U.S. That is what we built this country on. "Hey, there are only two black people in this town, so they can just sit in the back of the bus." Uhhhh, no. Not anymore. Leading us to Against-Camp #5:

5. But this isn't anything like civil rights or suffrage.

E. Yes, yes it is. Rights are being denied to a particular group for no reason other than who they love. All people in the U.S. deserve equal treatment under the law. That's it.
_________________________________________________________________
As for religion... religion needs to stay out of this. Religion is for the churches and temples and shrines. Religion is not for the courthouses or justices of the peace or the legislation. This is a civil issue. It should remain so.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

ratbastid

Anyone's lack of freedom is my lack of freedom. That's the way freedom works.

You still haven't answered my question. Instead you called it silly and issued a thoughtless challenge that I've just overcome. Answer this: What actual tangible harm does it do to have a gay couple marry?

Rekna

Let's assume that this "fact" is true. Then would it be logical to conclude children thrive better in families which make over 1 billion dollars a year. Therefore only families that make over a billion dollars a year should be allowed to marry.

Your logic is flawed NCB, stating that children do better in heterosexual families does not mean that children are neglected in homosexual families....

Willravel

I wonder how that would effect inflation....

Infinite_Loser

I see that you've taken what I stated and miscontrued it (More straw man). Nowhere did I tell you that you shouldn't care. I dare you to find where I stated as much, or even insinuated as much. The argument that I shouldn't care because it doesn't affect me is a two way street, as it can also be applied to your view on gay marriage.

What planet are you living on? If you can find me one country-- Either past, present or future-- Which is built upon the premise that you are advocating here, then I'll admit to being wrong about my view on gay marriage. While the concept of freedom for everyone is noble, it's not accurate. Other people's lack of freedom is, in many instances, your gain.

To clarify, you didn't overcome my challenge (Not that it was a challenge to begin with, but I'm using your words). Can I produce a list of tangible harms that would come of gay marriage? Nope. And I've never claimed I could. Can you produce a list of tangible harms that would come from not legalizing gay marriage? Nope. But you have claimed you could. What we can both produce, however, is a list of intangible harms which we believe might occur if/if not gay marriage is ever universally legalized.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Gilda

Good to see the concession.

Quite easily. Shared medical insurance. Hospital visitation. Legally protected rights to a relationship with children. There are roughly a thousand rights same-sex couples are denied as result. That is a whole bunch of tangible harm.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Frosstbyte

You could have made a lot of arguments. This is, perhaps, your worst option, for reasons that I see Gilda has already noted.

pig

I beg to disagree. I understand what you're saying, I believe, however I disagree with the implications. To wit:

I don't understand why you care if gay people can get marrierd because it doesn't affect you, and you don't see why I care about gay people getting married, because it doesn't affect me. That's the point you are making. So, neither of us should care, on that basis alone.

Fine.

Now, I argue that gay people are being denied civil rights because they can not enter into civil marriages. Neither of us should care for direct personal reasons, but I will side with the position which seems to give other people the same rights I have, and which has no affect on me. Why would you fall on the other side?

Which comes back to the question that bastid put forth, I seconded, and Frostbyte thirded.




+
I would argue ratbastid's statement is a pretty decent interpretation of the above.


gilda got to it before me, and it's only been stated about fifteen times in the thread so far.

So, back to this:

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

You're advocating state-sponsored selfishness. The US was bui8lt upon the princeple that all men are created equal. That implies equal treatment. That implies that justice is the same no matter if you are tall, short, man, woman, gay or straight. Freedom for everyone is societies gain, and the individual who seeks to stop one from being free for their own selfish gain is evil, and has no place in a free society.

Infinite_Loser

I never said this, but since you brought it up...

Gay marriage would cause the divorce rate per year to increase by a sizeable margin. That is, of course, unless divorce would only be limited to heterosexuals.

(Those aren't my views, but could be considered a defense of the aforementioned premise.)

The "I don't care what someone else does as long as it doesn't bother me" argument is fundamentally flawed. Assuming that you're heterosexual, I could ask you what harm would come to you by not allowing homosexuals to marry and your answer would be "No harm". There's no tangible harm done to me by allowing homosexuals to marry and there is no tangible harm done to you by not allowing them marry. So why do either of us care?

There is no such thing as equal rights for all. Since when has it become wrong to limit the civil rights of individuals? Since someone decided that gay marriage shouldn't be prohibited? It amazes me how people can completely ignore the fact that there are literally thousands of "Civil rights" which are prohibited to certain peoples, and a good majority of them are more important than whether or not gays are allowed to marry.

I'll make this simple:

Marriage is a strictly human concept (Though some animals do mate for life).

The underlying premise of marriage is to produce offspring and to provide a stable environment in which to raise them.

Heterosexuals can produce offspring while homosexuals can't. While not all heterosexuals produce offspring in a marriage, many of them do. No homosexual can produce offspring.

Therefore, from a purely biological standpoint, there is no reason for two homosexuals to try to "mate" as they can't. Two homosexuals will NEVER produce offspring.

Since two homosexuals can't mate and produce children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to giving homosexuals the right to marry while withholding the child-producing benefits from them.

By the way... The number of marriages which don't produce children are few and far between (I just thought you'd like to know) when compared the number of them that do.

I bolded the pertinent part. I'm sick and tired of the "All people must be treated equally under the United States Constitution!" argument, because that's a load of BS. You live in a country where people are denied basic rights-- Constitutionally, I might add-- Based on age, national origin, race, mental capacity, etc; Inequalities which, by the way, the majority of people live with and accept. But none of that matters. No! Let's instead claim that all groups are treated equally, save homosexuals.

Notice how the ONLY people thus far to mention religion are those in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Why is that?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

florida0214

This is an argument that will never end so i will simply put my opinion out there and stand back while it gets bashed and grug through the mud. I have noticed that COnservatives are way less active in forum type of settings then liberals so most of you will not agree with I have to say and I could honestly care less.

Somebody said in here that marriage is not religious issue but a civil issue. That may be the case when it comes to taxes and property and such things, but there are quite a few people out there who would argue that their marriage means more to them then being abel to file joint taxes. It is a big deal and, in my case, divorce is not an option. I do not get married thinking that if it doesnt work out I can always just get out. Anyway taht is not the issue.

Homosexual marriage scares people. It scares me. Wy should something so beautiful be taken and IMO Drug through the mud and be made to seem so dirty. Marriage was intended to be between a man and a women. Why else has it not become an issue until now.
If it was ever intended to be between two homsexuals, then there would have been an amendment or a clause or something in there.
The fact of the matter is that not every man was created equal. It simply cannot and will never be. There are certain right that Americans think they have, that they do not.
Some people have more rights then others. Some people have more privelage then others. Don't believe me. When have you ever seen a white kid get help from the NAACP. Lets face it America is run on the Golden rule. He who has the most gold makes all the rules.
It is funny to sit here and see people get all offended and uo tight abotu this issue. If same sex marriage is legalized, then so be it. I won't vote for a politician that is in favor of it but if I am in the minority then our legal system will provide the Homosexuals of America to "marry". It has no effect on my vows and will most likely not affect me at all. I hope they are happy and feel good about their decision.
At that point it would be their right. It make me wonder if the Federal government does not recognoze the union and it is only recognized by the state what benefits do you really get out of it. Maybe Peace of mind knowing that you went against the grain and fought the good fight.
That makes little if any sense to me. Why fight to fight. it proves nothing except that there is always a loser and it is never fun to be a loser.

__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

dc_dux

IL....you still havent responded to a point I made earlier: How is this argument (below) flawed?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Frosstbyte

Your unflinching commitment to a natural law/social-Darwinist definition of marriage is mind-boggling.

The underlying premise of MARRIAGE is to transfer property. Marriage was developed by societies to streamline the transfer of property between the male heads of families to appropriate male heirs in order to deal with scarcity of resources. The Family Values notion of marriage you espouse is a byproduct of that property purpose, but was NOT the underlying purpose of the civil and social institution that we call marriage. WOMEN (along with their dowries) were SOLD by one family to another in exchange for peace or access to resources or cows or cloth or something else. It was a society constructed mechanism for men to allocate and control their property. Children are a natural and convenient outcome of the arrangement, but the "purpose of marriage" was not to "make a safe and happy home for kids."

You have your very personal definition of what marriage means that represents an unwavering loyalty to an ideal that, as far as I can tell, is purely a construct of your own opinion. Furthermore, you are so committed to that definition that you would rather prevent other people from getting married and reaping the benefits of being married (of which there are many). THAT is the difference between me and you. My conception of marriage allows you to feel that way about marriage and Gilda to feel her way about marriage and will to feel his way and me to feel my way. And we can all get married by whoever we can find to marry us to whomever we want. You want to require the rest of the world to conform to your arbitrary definition of what marriage is and means for no other reason than you think it's right. That sentiment flies in the face of some 500 years of social progress across all spheres of human society, and explains why we're so confused and taken aback at how you respond to our argument.

Gilda

Nope. Even if every same sex couple were divorced, it would have a negligible effect on the divorce rate, and there is no evidence that same-sex couples would divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals.

It's always been wrong to do so on the basis of prejudice. It's been unconstitutional since 1868:

Yet, you find this one important enough to argue that millions of Americans should be denied it.

This is one of many, many purposes. The bolded part logically favors same-sex marriage.

This is factually wrong. Homosexuals often can and do reproduce. My wife (who is homosexual, by the way)will likely be doing so next year sometime if we're ever successful at the artificial insemination.

The same is true of homosexuals.

You keep repeating this as if it will make it true. It still remains untrue.

It's fun to try, though. I would point out, though, that we're talking a civil contract, not biology.

Not offspring that are biologically related to both parents, no. This is true of many heterosexual couples as well.

By doing so you would be denying the children being raised by same-sex couples many benefits.

The number of same sex marriages would be few and far between compared to the number of heterosexual marriages. Many of them do produce children.

No one is claiming that all groups are treated equally, just that all adults should be treated equally under the law as guaranteed in the Constitution.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert