How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[Ideologue]

This is kinda interesting given the individual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html

Given that I disagree with his premise of what the sole intent of marriage should be, I'm not going to agree with his reason for changing his mind. I don't agree that it is a basic right of children to know and be raised by their biological parents, and that that should be the goal of society's moral guidelines. That he's changed his mind in order to further that premise annoys me. Go back to fighting gay marriage. You're going to lose anyway, and we don't have to worry about you continuing to distort our society to fit your morals.

Then what is the purpose of marriage?

Trick question, there is none.

[DontSayBanana]

I opposed gay marriage believing that children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn't just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right.

Right.  Because the UN never promotes ivory-tower "values" that are anathema to common sense, such as the notion that developing youth should be sheltered from bigoted or otherwise-socially-incompatible individuals.  Such as the author, ironically.

marriage's steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state's licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.

Funny, because the current patchwork seems more of a "licensing of private relationships that are privately defined" than would be the case if it were as simple as officially sanctioning a partnership to take control of household maintenance.  This sounds more like a case of "my definition's right, and every other one is wrong."  The even funnier thing is that people like me actually support his definition of marriage as well (well, his right to define a marriage that way, anyway); we just think it's not the right approach for the government to be in the business of

licensing of private relationships that are privately defined

, such as granting special status for perceived religious sacraments.

might we also agree that getting married before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace?

...And this was why Henry VIII got into a bitch-fest with the church over not being able to divorce, and look how well that turned out.  "Producing heirs" is so 400 years ago.  Do we also automatically annul marriages that are childless after X amount of years?  It's a slippery slope.  Stay away from it. Yeah, that point's weak.  Ignore and proceed.

Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation?

Married couples typically cohabitate, and cohabitation doesn't automatically lead to children born out of wedlock.  I'm not sure what point he's trying to make here, but I am sure it's got nothing to do with gay marriage in any way shape or form.  SOAP BOX HIJACKED.

Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?

Knowing?  Sure.  Unfortunately, with the current state of human genetics, there are plenty of reasons why it might be necessary to know one's biological history.  I'm not so sure about the "be known by" part, but hey, some of us are willing to listen to other viewpoints.  Either way, there is a huge difference between "be known by" and "be raised by," with such a wide variety of social undesirables being biologically able to sire children that I'm absolutely convinced the "right" should be "in a safe environment," instead of "by their biological parents."

TL;DR/LANGUISH ANSWER: Pass the nails and hammer.  I'm not just going to refrain from opening this trojan horse, I want to make sure nothing can sneak out while we're sleeping.

[Eddie Teach]

Too bad this thread wasn't about garbon getting hitched.

[garbon]

I thought this would be a thread about garbon declaring he supports Romney.

If I vote, I'll likely vote for Romney but that doesn't mean I support him.

Logic: not the province of the above-quoted individual.

Just means that I'm anti-Obama.

[Siege]

Gay marriage would destroy our civilization.

[katmai]

Gay marriage would destroy our civilization.

Thankfully your civilization isn't the same as ours.

[The Brain]

American trusted journalist O'RLY informed me that in Sweden marriage was destroyed by gay marriage years before gay marriage was made legal.

[Ideologue]

I thought this would be a thread about garbon declaring he supports Romney.

If I vote, I'll likely vote for Romney but that doesn't mean I support him.

Logic: not the province of the above-quoted individual.

Just means that I'm anti-Obama.

Fair enough.  It's still material support to an enemy of America.

In any event, are you familiar with the phrase, "Cutting off your nose to spite the face?"

[Tonitrus]

Sometimes the face deserves it too.

[Syt]

American trusted journalist O'RLY informed me that in Sweden marriage was destroyed by gay marriage years before gay marriage was made legal.

Gay marriage is responsible for this?

[The Brain]

 

[Martinus]

I wouldn't want to see scenes from Bergman's marriage.