Except he IS having a discussion without name calling. And dealing with people questioning his reasons.

So ease up on the personal attack and keep it to the threads where he deserves it.

I think he's cool. Not really in agreement with him too much, but he has a right to his opinion whehter or not I like the way he arrived at them as my way of thinking. Everyone thinks differently, which is why we have different oppinions.

1) If one of my children turned out to be gay, I don't feel my opinion would change at all. I imagine it would be very frustrating as a parent, but I obviously wouldn't stop caring for my child. See: Dick Cheney

2) I enjoy opposition. Going to conservative universities in the south does not provide much, as nearly everyone is a Republican. Thus, I come to places like this.

3) While some of my personal reasons for being against gay marriage are based on emotion/religion, most of what I said was not. To be fair, most of people's reasoning on this board has been something along the lines of "Its not fair, its discimination." While I know you'd like to think this is a legal defense, it is not. It too, is basically an opinionated and emotional statement. There may come a day following a court ruling, where that defense is adequate (although I highly doubt it), but until then it is merely an emotional opinion about what you view to be fair. Marriage has always equated to a man and a woman. The combination of man and female generally has the ability to create offspring. The combination of man and man or woman and woman NEVER has the ability to produce offspring. So, if anything, I think rational and logical thought points to marriage remaining as it is.

Um, discrimination surely can be used in court for claims. You'll learn this in law school, I hope.

Here's the problem though - you can't make something law because "That's the way it has always been" either. There have been no convincing/solid studies that gay marriage is any sort of threat to society or to the citizens of the country. You can't make an argument against gay marriage without using religious grounds, and you can't legally ban something based on those religious grounds (seperation of church and state).

I'm not attacking you or your beliefs; if you are against gay marriage, that is certainly your right. I just don't see a way you can make any sort of law banning it.

Yeah, but discrimination has to be BASED on something, I learned that in undergrad. Anyone can make a claim of discrimination about anything, but that doesn't mean it is a legitimate one.

Well it depends on your perspective, just as you don't see how you can "ban" it, there are just as many who see no reason why you could/would allow it. People who are for gay marriage act as though they've had this "right" and we're taking it away.

You can't use fertility as a rule for not allowing gay marriages. I know you said GENERALLY a male and female can have children, but if that's the standard it needs to be "ALWAYS" Thus no elderly couples, or infertile people.
Some cultures waited until the woman was pregnant before allowing the wedding, to ensure fertility. I suggest we return to this tradition to make sure that marriage stays "traditional"

We're obviously never going to get anywhere with this argument. Despite the counter points people on here bring up, we're still talking about marriage, which is the union of a male and female. Thats it, thats the way it always has been, and in my opinion it should remain as such. Sure, we changed interracial marriage laws. But that was still between members of the opposite sex. Marriage is something the majority of people in this country hold dear, are they also oppose this unnatural change. Why then, should we allow something so contrary to the very definition of the act, when the best argument people can muster to change it is that the current situation is "mean" or "unfair."

The best argument in favor of allowing gay marriage is that there is no reason based on the law or legal reasoning not to allow it.

I know this is semantics, but I don't think I'd have a problem with having "civil unions" hold the same legal standing as a marriage. I believe that marriage as instituted by Christ is between a man and a woman, but I also recognize that this is my opinion, and others are free to do what they want, and responsible for their own destiny.

What's the divorce rate in this country again? How many people have cheated on their spouses? I would not say that "marriage is held dear to many people in this country". There's not a whole lot of evidence of that. Of course, it's convenient to say, even if it's hypocritical.

There is so much hatred in this world, why should we stand in the way of two people who love each other?

But this is based on something - it is based on sexual orientation. The discrimination is based on the fact that both parties are gay/lesbian.

I think the position of those who are for gay marriage comes from the thought that there is no legal or constitutional reason for same-sex marriage to not exist.

What I find amusing is when people who are very outspoken on the issue of preservation of traditional marriage between a man and a woman and the sanctity of marriage cheat on their spouses and eventually get divorced. I know someone like this and wonder if her views will change.

And they very likely may engage in anal and oral sex, threesomes, "open marriages" etc. which are also "wrong" in the same way that two men or two women are considered "wrong".

But you are absolutely right when you said "The best argument in favor of allowing gay marriage is that there is no reason based on the law or legal reasoning not to allow it."

And as for the semantics mentioned by Alphafrog, I doubt that anyone would care if it was just called a civil union instead. Civil union, marriage, whatever, as long as they have the same rights.

There is just as little or less reasoning which supports gay marriage.