@Bignosemousie
Thanks for the article. And it's not as long as it seems, thank goodness (I was worried as I saw my scroll bar get shorter and shorter!)

A good part of the article dealt with the complexity of the interaction of marriage to society and the problems that have emerged over time in societies regarding changing mores and social customs. All ligitimate concerns that have or should be looked at.

A fundamental change that must be considered is that we no longer consider homosexuality to be an aberration. Admittedly, there is a large faction of people who still do and for these people the denial of the right of marriage may seem justified. We routinely deny rights to people wh...

@Bignosemousie
Thanks for the article. And it's not as long as it seems, thank goodness (I was worried as I saw my scroll bar get shorter and shorter!)

A good part of the article dealt with the complexity of the interaction of marriage to society and the problems that have emerged over time in societies regarding changing mores and social customs. All ligitimate concerns that have or should be looked at.

A fundamental change that must be considered is that we no longer consider homosexuality to be an aberration. Admittedly, there is a large faction of people who still do and for these people the denial of the right of marriage may seem justified. We routinely deny rights to people whose actions are seen as chosen and contrary to the welfare of others. At one time this applied to homosexuality as well in that people saw it as a "chosen lifestyle". We have come to realize that this thinking is errouneous. The second part of the argument concerning the welfare of others needs justification and it seems the author of the article relies on the complexity of society and the fact that we can't foresee the outcome of changes in society. This is an argument from ignorance and invalid.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.

In all fairness, the author remains mostly on the fence and refuses to take sides in this debate. Yes he points out many problems facing marriage in society yet none, in my view, adequetly answers the question of same sex marriage and the effect it would have on marriage.

The 800 lb gorrilla of course is the denial of rights to a segment of society based on sexuality. That, to me, seems a regressive policy to follow.

Thanks for the link BNM, it's nice to see a chicki grow a set

Marrigae matters! It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those
kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities
where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves
kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both
spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important
institution

I agree! And you know what? I'm happy that I have a partner in life who trys to understand me and loves me for all my faults and all my weaknesses and all my goodness Now he happens to be a man. And since everyone knows on CM that I ...

Thanks for the link BNM, it's nice to see a chicki grow a set

Marrigae matters! It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those
kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities
where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves
kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both
spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important
institution

I agree! And you know what? I'm happy that I have a partner in life who trys to understand me and loves me for all my faults and all my weaknesses and all my goodness Now he happens to be a man. And since everyone knows on CM that I am bisexual, and grew up in a more closeted era and in a rural state, I am here to tell you that it would have been nice to have a choice in this matter of marriage. I would change nothing about my life. Nothing. But I was in love with a woman once and the problem is that I let society dictate to me how I should feel and what was right and what was wrong and I'm here to tell you that it wasn't wrong, it was beautiful and incredible and wonderful and one of the happiest times of my life. But because I am bisexual, I am able to be attracted to both sexes but the point is that gay people have no choice in this matter. Their orientation is fixed. Just like mine; and it's not any more different than my blue eyes or my being left-handed. So what is immoral about two people in love entering into a lifelong, committed monogamous relationship? Nothing! But it's also wrong to insist that marriage has always been between one man and one woman--and therefore must always remain that way, in fact, discrimination against gays in any way is simply wrong.