Just curious - would you cite MSNBC as a source for any other topic?

Is there anyone that believes that the Defense Of Marriage Act won't be easily recognized as hateful and bigoted legislation ten years from now? Even five years from now?

DOMA proponents couldn't be further away from the right side of History. This isn't a group of people that are searching for "special rights" or trying to cut into your piece of the pie. They just want the same equal treatment you and I get as Americans.

The name of that bill alone would be laughably ludicrous were it not so evil. As soon as someone can convince me that even one traditional marriage has been adversely affected in any way by gay marriage, I'll go out and buy a hat -- and then eat it.

@whistleDick Yeah, I'm already embarrassed for when my future kids read about this crap in their history books.

"the global system of nation-states, borders, visas, and their attendant limits on the human rights to free movement and association amounts to a worldwide system of apartheid and is responsible for tremendous avoidable suffering." -Will Wilkinson

recently I have been trying to find a way to move to and work in the UK. My mother is Portuguese so I'm working on getting an EU citizenship that would expand my options immensely. Another option is marrying. Reading through visa requirements I asked my British boyfriend if I could emigrate under a civil partnership and he laughed "that's legalese for gay marriage". So, the UK is enlightened enough to allow settlement of gay couples in long term relationships but what would be more enlightened still is open immigration between those countries not at war and for those individuals who can contribute to society.

As soon as someone can convince me that even one traditional marriage has been adversely affected in any way by gay marriage, I'll go out and buy a hat -- and then eat it.

Lets not forget that the version of marrige we are 'defending', the no fault divore - interacial couples allowed version, isnt even 50yrs old yet.

Not even two generations old aint much of a tradition

Dick, that's an interesting thought... we never really know how history will judge what we do today. I will point out that, in the early 20th century, "separate but equal" was considered a progressive position.

I could make an argument that the DOMA can work in favor of the pro-gay-marriage advocates if they devise the proper tactics. If DOMA had not passed, all 50 states would be required to recognize gay marriage immediately, which would enormously increase organized public resistance to it. (And said resistance would not necessarily come from where everybody thinks. I point out that if it had been left up to the white voters in California, Proposition 8 would have failed. It was the black vote that put it over the top.) DOMA allows the pro-gay-marriage forces to chip away at the problem, a bit at a time. It's the old laboratory-of-democracy thing; over time, perceptions will change as some states pass it and encounter no significant problems.

(I will concede that DOMA may very well be unconstitutional, on several grounds. But I don't think it's wise to attack that head on. If a court throws DOMA out and compels all of the states to recognize gay marriage, the next step for the anti-gay-marriage forces will be a Constitutional amendment, which as things stand right now, has a pretty good chance of being ratified. That would make the problem much more difficult.)

"(And said resistance would not necessarily come from where everybody thinks. I point out that if it had been left up to the white voters in California, Proposition 8 would have failed. It was the black vote that put it over the top.)"

Point of order Dave - even if black voters did vote disproportionatley for Porop 8, but they are so small a community in California these days that they don't matter. It was Mormon voters and fence-sitters who did not know where the bigoted poltiical ads were funded from that put Prop 8 over the top - white voters.

"Just curious - would you cite MSNBC as a source for any other topic?"

Just how does an Israeli have any legitimate interst in or opinion about any of this US matter anyway?

""the global system of nation-states, borders, visas, and their attendant limits on the human rights to free movement and association amounts to a worldwide system of apartheid and is responsible for tremendous avoidable suffering." -Will Wilkinson"

"A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” he warned"

Here's a deal for ya. Get rid of the welfare state and then and only then, I will support open immigration for spouses and relatives (even gay marriages) Until then, not in favor of it, even for traditional marriages. US citizenship or even residency is an attractive option for about 90 percent of the poverty stricken second and third world. The system as it stands now is rife with fraud and abuse.

Cousin Dave,

That's a very good point and maybe it'll work out better in the long run. I hope so. It would be a hard case to make that the folks that drafted it and voted for it were thinking about legislative tactics and not being led by the hate and bigotry in their hearts. (I know that you're not attempting to make that case).

I'm not involved in the gay rights movement, though as a fair minded American, maybe I should be, so I'm not really thinking tactics. Again, very good point. Hopefully, the day will come that we'll see an America that values all Her citizens -- however that day comes.

The amount of shit they put straights through if they wanna bring a foreign bride into this country is rather large.

But at least the government gets new taxpayers out of the deal.

Dude brings his boyfriend in from another country, how exactly does the country benefit?

And love is not a valid reason to be married. Ask any divorce attorney how well that works out.

This is happening right now to one of my best friends in the world. My friend's girlfriend has been living here legally on a long term work visa that's finally up, and they've been living together in a permanent, monogamous relationship for over a year. If they could be married, they would be.

My friend's girlfriend moved back to Germany last week, and my friend is currently debating which will take less out of her - continuing to fight this, or renouncing her citizenship in the country she was born in, the country she loves, and moving forever to Germany.

There is no moral basis for this fucking law, and anyone who defends it or tries to ameliorate the damage it does is pondscum. This is not an issue on which good people can differ. This is only an issue because some people are, when confronted with the existence of homosexuals, reminded of their own insecurities and perceived flaws. Most bigotry stems from a fear of the other. Homosexuality is the only bigotry that comes from fear of the self.

It's one thing when these pigs are out there trying to legislate people's right to formalize their love for each other, but when this bullshit actively and aggressively destroys relationships - as this does - it's time to recognize that we have to stop tolerating the bigotry that they're peddling.

Dave, we know EXACTLY how history will judge this. The same way history ALWAYS judges bigotry and small mindedness and cowardice. If you spend one single second of your life worrying that two people are out there loving each other in a way that you don't approve of, you need to seek therapy. Now.

"A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” he warned"

So my freedom of movement and right to contract with other people regardless of where they live should be contingent upon getting rid of the welfare state? As much as I admire Milton Friedman, I think he's wrong about this, simply because the welfare state is not going to go away any time soon - unless there is some economic catastrophe.

"The [immigration or welfare] system as it stands now is rife with fraud and abuse." Yes, just like any other governmental program, but restircting people's freedom further because of the fraud and abuse and further expanding government power isn't the solution.

As many people may come here to take advantage of the welfare system - though that proposition is dubious - many more come here (or try to go somewhere else) to find a better life for themselves by working hard or trading with others, or they are trying to escape oppressive governments (which, in reality these days is almost all of them).

I think this "open immigration only without the welfare state" is just another false dichotomoy posed by some (not necessarily all) who are opposed to human freedom.

A man bringing a boyfriend/husband into the country and a woman bringing a girlfriend/wife into the country brings in exactly as many taxpayers as straight people. The *only* difference is the gender of the partner. Homosexuals are real people too, after all.

Love is not a valid reason to be married? WTF? Is that comment for straight people, or only for gay people? Love *is* the sole reason that most people marry.

Nearly all arguments against the marriage of gays are religious arguments. From quoting Leviticus, to quoting the Qur'an, to pointing at Sodom and Gomorrah, to saying that God will smite the earth if this 'sin' is allowed. It may just be me, but I've never heard an atheist argue against gay marriage.

I mean, I'm an atheist and I'm straight, and sure, gay/lesbian marriage is "icky". It's certainly not my cup of tea. But I think brussel sprouts are icky, and some people love them. Doesn't mean I have to partake, but it doesn't mean they have to be banned, either.

This is America, a land where we're supposed to have freedom to practice whatever religion, or no religion, that we want. It's not illegal to be a priest, a witch, a Buddhist, a satanist, a Hindu, a nun, an atheist, or even worship Zeus if you want. It's not illegal to have nudist communities, Burning Man, vampire LARPing, or BDSM dungeons. Communal orgies, adultery, unwed pregnancies, wife/husband swapping, and gay sex itself aren't illegal. Why, then, do we have governmental discrimination against what gender someone chooses as a life partner, solely for religious purposes? We're better than that.

Not sure why the state should sanction things that are abominations of nature, and I do not mean that in a mean way. I have no problem with gays, and I am not religious, just don't see why we have to have gay marriage when the primary purpose of marriage was to allow procreation and stability for said result, no?

"My friend's girlfriend moved back to Germany last week, and my friend is currently debating which will take less out of her - continuing to fight this, or renouncing her citizenship in the country she was born in, the country she loves, and moving forever to Germany."

Why is this hysterical overreaction, your friend's only option? Germany does not require you to either move there "forever" or to renounce your citizenship here to live there. American x pats are living and working happily all over the world. If you don't like Germany, find a third option where both of you can be happy.

Marriage, in this day and age, is not to allow procreation, at least in terms of the government. Look at these facts:

- People can get married and never have children.
- People can have 12 children together without getting married.
- Homosexual people can have children through a surrogate, or in the case of lesbians, finding a sperm donor.
- Homosexual people can both foster and adopt.
- Sterile people can get married.
- People that have children are allowed to get divorced.

My point is, saying that marriage is solely to allow people to procreate is looking at the issue through rose-colored glasses. Gay people may not be able to directly mingle their genes, but I know homosexual people that are parents and they don't make bad ones. And some straight people make terrible parents.

Marriage *is*, however, indeed for stability. It offers benefits of inclusion on a spouse's health insurance, life insurance, bank merging, tax benefits, and scads of other governmental paperwork. It also offers the benefit of hospital visits, and in this case, immigration. There is a load of government paperwork that depends on spousal information. In terms of that, the only difference that gay marriage makes is the check mark on the box M or F.

And just because you deem it an "abomination of nature", doesn't mean it's actually so. A friend of mine has two very gay male cats. Seriously, they hump each other all the time.

"Not sure why the state should sanction things that are abominations of nature, and I do not mean that in a mean way."-ronc.

Really? Is there a non-mean way to take that? Because I think if you have to say you don't mean it in a mean way, you know damn well that EVERYONE is going to see it as a mean statement.

That's like me calling you a fucking idiot, but saying I don't mean it in a mean way.

"Why, then, do we have governmental discrimination against what gender someone chooses as a life partner, solely for religious purposes? We're better than that."

Can you explain to me then, why do we have governmental discrimination against what "family relationship" you have with someone you choose as a life partner?

The government said that you cannot marry your mother, father, brother or sister. It turns out that there is a reason for that.

The government do not give a shit about how happy you will be if you could marry your father you love so much. They are more concerned about the wellbeing of the next generation out of that marriage.

The government decided not to bless the inbreeding for the sake of the next generation. The same logic applies to the gay marriages.

"Point of order Dave - even if black voters did vote disproportionatley for Porop 8, but they are so small a community in California these days that they don't matter. "

Counterpoint: If you regard their stance as immoral, you don't get to excuse them just because they are a minority. Otherwise you are saying that their minority status renders them incapable, or exempt from, moral agency.

"It was Mormon voters and fence-sitters who did not know where the bigoted poltiical ads were funded from that put Prop 8 over the top - white voters."

That doesn't wash. You can't blame it on white voters when the majority of them voted against it.

Incest is illegal and is going to stay illegal for several reasons. First, in the case of father/daughter or mother/son it's typically considered criminally predatory, much in the same way that a priest molesting an altar boy (even an adult one) or a CEO sexually harassing a secretary is a predatory relationship. There is a position of authority there that taking sexual advantage of is blatant abuse. This does not apply to a homosexual relationship.

Second, incest doesn't produce no children -- it produces severely crippled children that are often a huge burden on society. This is even sometimes a problem with the children of first cousins, and it IS legal for first cousins to marry. Finally, there are already extensive provisions in the law regarding government benefits for immediate family members. Again, none of this applies to a homosexual relationship.

Also, the act of incest itself is illegal. Homosexual sex is not.

Sarah:

Marriage *is*, however, indeed for stability.

Well, then let's exempt gays from the no-fault divorce laws and see how many of them still support gay marriage.

That argument is just as stupid as the one put forth by gay men that allowing them to get married will somehow magically make them less promiscuous. Marriage doesn't seem to have made Ahnold less promiscuous, does it?

This is not now and has never been about "equality" or "love" or "marriage" or "rights".

It's about money. Money for wedding planners, money for reception planners, money for divorce lawyers. Alimony for the emotionally ruined partners who have been dumped.

Nearly all arguments against the marriage of gays are religious arguments. From quoting Leviticus, to quoting the Qur'an, to pointing at Sodom and Gomorrah, to saying that God will smite the earth if this 'sin' is allowed. It may just be me, but I've never heard an atheist argue against gay marriage.

You just did. Me. Homosexual civil marriage confers no benefits to society, so why the hell should my tax dollars subsidise the recording thereof? In the present cultural ruin, heterosexual marriage isn't giving much ROI either, so why am I paying for that?

Civil marriage is a three-party contract: man, woman, and state. The state agrees to give certain fiscal and legal considerations to the man and woman, and they in turn agree to give the state new citizens. Too many people not holding up their end of the bargain, and that's why the Social Security ponzi scheme goes bust.

A friend of mine has two very gay male cats. Seriously, they hump each other all the time.

Let's not bring your ignorance of nature into the conversation, please.

Josh Olson:

There is no moral basis for this fucking law, and anyone who defends it or tries to ameliorate the damage it does is pondscum. This is not an issue on which good people can differ.

Not all laws have a moral basis, and thank you for calling me pondscum. Government is not here to make sure you feel fulfilled.

Jean Finet:

So my freedom of movement and right to contract with other people regardless of where they live should be contingent upon getting rid of the welfare state? As much as I admire Milton Friedman, I think he's wrong about this, simply because the welfare state is not going to go away any time soon - unless there is some economic catastrophe.

Uhm... the welfare state when combined with open borders creates the catastrophe. I don't know if you've noticed lately, but we're headed right for it because entitlements are going to bankrupt us.

Frack. Put a before that second indent.

I am not religious, just don't see why we have to have gay marriage when the primary purpose of marriage was to allow procreation and stability for said result, no?

Posted by: ronc

The primary purpose of marrige in the Judeo-christin sense was property distribution, doweries and famillial allegences. Patriachs would sell their daughters as sex slaves, excuse me wives, in order to secure political and famillial allegences.

Brian is the only person I've evr heard give a somewhat rational non religious agrumnet against gay marrige, the only failre of his argument is that straight couples who are unwilling or incapable of haveing kids are allowed to wed. And the number of gay people who want to marry with or without kids is dwarfed by the strait people who done have kids.

the only failre of his argument is that straight couples who are unwilling or incapable of haveing kids are allowed to wed. And the number of gay people who want to marry with or without kids is dwarfed by the strait people who done have kids.

Not a failure, you just hadn't asked.

When I laid my logic down on a pair of married friends who were childless, the wife asked "so we shouldn't be allowed to be married then?"

The answer was "No." Breach of contract. You agreed to give the state babies, and failed to do so. I'd only grant a waiver on it to couples who did not know in advance that they were infertile but who entered with the good-faith intention of procreation.

Either marriage means something, or it doesn't. Even though it's been about "property", etc - it ALWAYS came down to children. Always. Either as heirs, or as further links to politically connected families.

By failing to reproduce, you make your marriage totally meaningless. People today live with the delusion that they are somehow owed some level of acknowledgement of their "love". Bullshit. So you love someone. What do I care? It isn't doing anything for me. I can't hire "love" to work for me. "Love" doesn't pay taxes or insurance or anything else.

Getting married for love is like having sex because you like the cigarette at the end. You're doing it wrong.

"Second, incest doesn't produce no children -- it produces severely crippled children that are often a huge burden on society."

Agreed. That is why we made it illegal.

The gay marriages by themselves give us zero next generation.

As you know, we borrowed a lot of money from Chinese, who has reputation to be tough landlords. We are counting on our next generation to pay off that debts, so I can keep my legs.

And you seriously expect the rest of the society to pay for gay marriages, so they can be "happy"?

Angie, sorry, but I see this gay marriage thing as just one more fringe group wanting special treatment, and nothing more. That is my opinion, and if you want to call me a fucking idiot, you have that right, but please know that I have an extremely high IQ and am very well educated. I do not hate gays, but I prefer the ones that do not march in gay pride parades, and just live a quiet life like the rest us.

A Marriage Protection Amendment will not succeed. While people consistently reject gay marriage in states where it is put to referendum, I don't think the majorities are necessarily solid enough to convince 2/3 of Senators, 2/3 of Congressmen and 3/4 of state legisl00tures to accept it.

Furthermore, a simple amendment superceding the full faith and credit clause in the area of what defines marriage would suffice. Each state could then have it its own way.

Amy, you brought up a point last year, when you asserted that people opposed gay marriage due to revulsion of the gay lifestyle. I don't think people opposed to homosexual marriages are necessarily homophobic (irrationally afraid of gays).

A more accurate term, based on what you said, might be homomisia (hatred, disgust, loathing, revulsion of homosexuals).

And then some of us oppose gay marriage for other reasons (religious, fear of censorship of critics of homosexuality once gay marriage is accepted, etc.)

I think I would be willing to accept gay marriage if people speaking out against it aren't subsequently punished or censored, children are not indoctrinated in the public skrewels, and religious institutions aren't forced to marry homosexuals -- or heterosexuals, for that matter, if that's their thing.

Not a fringe group wanting special rights, a minority group wanting equal rights.

My BIL tried to convince me letting gays marry somehow devalues hetero marriage, I just can't see it. How is it any skin off my nose? Then he says if they allow gay marriage the next step is polygamous marriage and that is somehow gonna affect my and my sister's marriages exactly how?
I think they should let any number of consenting adults marry who and how many they want. Just not the kind where the parents can marry their minor children off to older men, that's just child abuse.

@Chang: Hommosexuals cannot breed with their partners. They can always us an opposite-sex surrogate, but there is no inbreeding involved. Usually, adoption does the trick.

@nonegiven - 20 years ago I said that if the demands to normalize homosexuality were accepted that the homosexual movement would be demanding marriage next. And upon seeing that success, then the polygamists and pedophiles would line up demanding THEIR equal rights.

I was right.

Homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the total population of humanity, and I don't find it reasonable to call marriage a human right.

mpetrie, that is a weak argument. Gays have the EXACT same rights as everybody else. If they want to marry they can marry the opposite sex, just like everyone else. They already have equal rights

I love the polygamy is next argument.

Somehow the fact that more than half of god prophets in the bible were polygamus, and that polygamy is a form of marrige that lasted thousands of years vs the less than half a century "tradition" they are defending never seems to enter into their minds

wow, half the prophets in the bible were polygamists? Really, please prove that one, as in the bible I read front to back quite a few times, I dont remember reading this one. And polygamy as it exists in this country is nothing more than abuse of women and a nice sexuality variety for a few men. Have kids with the older ugly woman, bang the shit out of the 16 year old wife. But, I can see the logic of Brians argument, these groups are such a small minority, and yet they make a majority of the "noise"

Really Ronc, you missed the part where Moses had two wives? Where David had a guy killed to claim his wife as one of his own? Where Solomon had over 300 wives and 700 concubines? Where Abramham had a couple of wives? Where his son Issac had a couple of wives?

You missed all that?

"Counterpoint: If you regard their stance as immoral, you don't get to excuse them just because they are a minority. "

Valid point, Dave, but I was not excusing them, I was dismissing them. Excusing behavior is a moral judgment, and moral judgements on "believers" are a waste of time. They don't rise to that level most of the time.

"And you seriously expect the rest of the society to pay for gay marriages, so they can be "happy"?"

Chang? How is anyone expecting the rest of society to "pay" for gay marraiges? As it is, gays pay for straights' marriages, at least for their larvae and all their social needs.

You're an idiot, Chang, and if the rest of us were as stupid as you are, the Chinese would have a walk. Fortunately, the Chinese need us more - for markets, food, technological innovation to steal - than we need them - they can cry for their money; they know we can exterminate them all in however long it takes a volley of interballistic missiles to cross the Pacific.

yes, indeed I did, but it is really irrelevant to this argument anyway. And I was really into the bible in 8th grade as I went to a Christian school, and read it a few times, but the old testament kind of bored me, so I glazed thru it, wanting to get to the juice of the Jesus story.

"That doesn't wash. You can't blame it on white voters when the majority of them voted against it. " Dave

Logic fail. Even a minority of voters in a group can be numerous enough to pass a measure, to "put it over the top" if the otucome is close.

"Homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the total population of humanity, and I don't find it reasonable to call marriage a human right." Brian.

Well the US Supreme Court does. It's settled law. So what you find or don't find means very little.

"You're an idiot, Chang, and if the rest of us were as stupid as you are, the Chinese would have a walk. Fortunately, the Chinese need us more - for markets, food, technological innovation to steal - than we need them - they can cry for their money; they know we can exterminate them all in however long it takes a volley of interballistic missiles to cross the Pacific."

I could be an idiot but I bet you never played chess in your life.

I don't give a shit if Chinese will cry or we can nuke the Beijing, so we don't have to pay the debts.

What is at stake is that what our allies would think of us when we tell the Chinese that we simply are not going to pay their debts because our Ponzi scam failed.

Do you think Japanese or British might suggest that we abandon dollars as world currency? When that day comes, it does not matter you are gay or straight.

We all are screwed.

Sorry, ronc, but anyone who has to announce that they're smart or have a "high IQ" loses any chance at being considered smart. I didn't make the rules.

angie, I was replying a retort to the fact you called me "a fucking idiot"

@Jim - so the Supreme Court was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Although I'd bet (without reading the text of the Loving decision) that it went along religion and free association lines. doesn't elevate it to "human right" status.

@lujlp - Sure, in the old testament. Note how conveniently that went away in the new testament. Note also how monogamous societies seem to grow and prosper while polygamous ones wallow in their own feces.

So far, I've not heard one valid argument for the extension of civil marriage to homosexuals. Every one I've heard can be reduced to "I want it, that's why."

Sorry, you're gonna have to come up with something better than that. Maybe show that society has something to gain from it?

Incest does not create crippled children. It creates an increased risk of hereditary disorders. Most offspring of incest are normal and healthy. Let's not perpetuate ignorance.

"Incest does not create crippled children. It creates an increased risk of hereditary disorders. Most offspring of incest are normal and healthy. Let's not perpetuate ignorance."

Absolutely true, and when you have groups of religious people who practice first cousin marriages for generations, they become highly inbred and the resulting children have high rates of genetic problems. They have seen this in both the Muslim populations in Great Britain, and also see it in the Amish in the United States.

They have seen this in both the Muslim populations in Great Britain, and also see it in the Amish in the United States.

Not to mention the royal family.

Although if we want to use the law to enforce hereditary strength, we ought to be encouraging, nay REQUIRING interracial marriages. Have you noticed how hot most interracial kids end up? Mariah? Hello?

brain, re the 'new testement' there are only three prophets.

1. John the Baptist - jebus' cousin mentioned only twice, once at Jbus' baptism, and once at his own death - might not have even been a prophet

2. Paul, the Inquisitor formally known as Saul. Wrote letters, never mwtoned his private life, half of his 'works' cant even be verified as acctually being written by him

3. John the Revolator - For some reason most of the christians I know think John the Revolator, John the Baptist, and the apostle John the groupie are all the same guy, again no mention of personal life

@luj - none of which matters one whit. Polygamy was on the way out because it breeds instability. Having large numbers of unmarriageable males is inherently destabilizing.

Which is why the mormons would send their unwanted males out. They had a way to get rid of them that didn't involve war.

Polygamy was on the way out because it breeds instability.

Absolutly true brian, and wholly irreleavent from a religios objection to gay marrige by advocating religiously traditional marrige.

Personally I'd suport your idea that only breeders be allowed the status of "marrige" but for the fact that non breeders are allowed to have it so long as they have the 'corrct' sexual orientation

"Sorry, you're gonna have to come up with something better than that. Maybe show that society has something to gain from it?"

So now we all live for the good of society, our rights are determined by how useful they are to the government.

Funny, Brian - I hadn't figured you for a Socialist. I had thought you were the kind of person that would balk at the idea that the governemnt grants us our rights. I misjudged you apparently.

Every workable society must have a bit of socailism, otherwise there would be no society at all, just anarchy

Although if we want to use the law to enforce hereditary strength, we ought to be encouraging, nay REQUIRING interracial marriages. Have you noticed how hot most interracial kids end up? Mariah? Hello?

They are probably healthier, too. It's the human analogy to "hybrid vigor" in the animal breeding world.

If the goal of marriage is to produce babies for the "good" of society, what about the people that get married and have more babies than they can afford, who all end up on welfare? Seems they wouldn't exactly be good for society.

And I think it would be good for society to give a gay married couple the opportunity to raise an adopted child that might otherwise end up a troubled person or someone who isn't a productive member of society. I'm NOT saying that children who are orphans are going to go that route, but a loving and stable family is an undeniably better environment to bring up productive members of society.

Even so, if you say gay marriage cannot help society, I want to know why that matters? How would it hurt society?

"If the goal of marriage is to produce babies for the "good" of society, what about the people that get married and have more babies than they can afford, who all end up on welfare? Seems they wouldn't exactly be good for society."

That thing about "the purpose of marriage is to have babies" is kind of a non sequitor anyway. People can have babies without being married. I think what's really being gotten at here is the conventional view that a society with a lot of unattached adults is an unstable society. It's long been a tenant of political science that society has an interest in promoting marriage on order that adults be paired off in relationships -- thus the whole point of having the state issue marriage licenses, etc. But that in itself hasn't really got anything to do with reproduction. (It may have a lot to do with child rearing, but that's a different argument.)

"Even so, if you say gay marriage cannot help society, I want to know why that matters? "

Which is what this really comes down to. Libertarianism 101 says that if something doesn't hurt me and doesn't hurt society generally, then I have no valid reason to support banning it. Assuming that the data bears out that there is no harm in gay couples raising children (it appears to be leaning that way), then as a straight guy, gay marriage has absolutely no direct or indirect effect on me. Therefore, I have no valid reason to oppose it.

Even so, if you say gay marriage cannot help society, I want to know why that matters? How would it hurt society?

It imposes costs upon me to subsidize the government that records the union and provides legal and social benefits.

In other words, every marriage costs me money. By making with the babies, at least I have a chance to get some of that back by new people coming along and adding value to the world.

So maybe we only allow gay marriage to couples who agree to raise one or more children to adulthood.

I doubt they'll go for that though, because equality was never what they were after.

Cool -- if that's the marriage deal straight people also get. (Everybody who hasn't had kids, you're now divorced.)

You should see the looks I get when I propose that.