[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Razor,
Well, you didn't really answer my question about what it does to you specifically, but I see how your concern for society as a whole affects how you view this issue. But you do bring up some other interesting points.

With regard to structure - there were no laws changed in MA to allow gay marriage. Some people tried (and still try) to change laws to eradicate it in MA.

I agree about the deadbeat dad types. I also don't like spousal abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, street gangs, and a lot of other things like that. I think the bulk of gays who want to get married are honest and decent people who are looking for stability. And I also suspect that many of them would be better parents than those deadbeat dad/abusive types. And since they cannot reproduce on their own they might make a perfect place to put kids who might otherwise have ended up as abortions.

It would seem that you are OK with allowing laws to give gay couples certain legal rights that are the equivalent of the legal rights associated with marriage. Calling those legal rights by the term 'marriage' only then becomes a religious or emotional need. I could care less about the religious need - religions are private entities and I do not want to legislate them. The emotional need is identical to straight couples, therefore I have no problem calling a set of legal rights 'marriage' as far as the legal aspects are concerned. Calling it the same thing for legal purposes will eliminate any possible advantage or disadvantage for one group or another.

I understand the argument regarding other types of marriages. Many people who are in favour of gay marriage do ignore potential problems with other types of marriage. I think it is because they do not understand the issues. The reasons are scientific; it is a proven fact that humans have all kinds of offspring problems when close relatives breed. It is 'morally' wrong because humans noticed thousands of years ago that kids of brothers and sisters usually came out sorta screwed up.
As for polygamy - Having 1 wife keeps me plenty busy - having more would probably kill me (though death by multiple girlfriend might be something fun to try). However, there are financial and legal reasons to not allow this. Group marriages would not qualify for the same legal benefits because trying to split spousal rights and benefits between multiple people is just not the same as with a single partner.

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

350 or so years ago people were killing 'witches' right here in the good ol' USA. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is a witch'.

150 years ago people were killing black people simply because they were black. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is black'.

60 years ago people were killing Jews, Gypsies, gays and a whole bunch of other people. That was viewed as morally acceptable by a lot of people.

Today, we shalt not kill, unless you happen to be Palestinian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever - then it is not so much a big deal because they belong to a different group than we do, and everybody knows that they are not quite as human as we are. I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but we do tend to get a bit cavalier about wiping out a bunch of people we have never met.

'Traditional' marriage has changed through the years as well. A few decades ago it was against the law in the US for a white person to marry a black person. Mormons were allowed to have multiple wives until the late 1800s. Less than 100 years ago half of a married couple could not even vote. India has a different set of marriage laws for a variety of religions. Humanity is constantly evolving (well most of humanity), and even those morals that seem set in stone get tweaked every so often. I would rather we make those tweaks based on the founding principles of this country rather than one group or another's religious beliefs.

Steve

Steve,
The reason I didn't give an answer to your question was that its irrelevant, how it effects me personally, my opposition is how it effects society as a whole, just as I don't vote with my wallet, when deciding on a candidate.
You speak to an emotional need for gays the same as hetros, I couldn't care less for either groups emotion needs, and certainly don't want that as the guiding force on how to make the laws of the land.
You are still making decisions for the polygamist, and as far as close relatives, what is one is sterilized, so no offspring, what do we say to their marriage then?
As far as "thou shalt not kill", "you do err not knowing the scripture", the penalty of breaking many of the commandments was death, and the point being, homosexuality was not approved.
350 years ago in one small New England town, one preacher lead a group of town people to kill 21 women,for witchcraft, although tragic, it hardly set a standard of accepted accepted morality.
150 years ago the killing of blacks, was condemned by the majority and those guilty were of a vigilantly mentality.
60 years ago hundreds of thousands of brave Americans, along with British, Australian, French and others gave their lives to save the Jews, Gypsies, gays.
Today the Muslim, Communist, are strangers just as the Nazi, and Japs were in the 1940's. No we don't know them but if they want to fly planes into our building, wipe out Israel, their ours enemies and we will wipe them out. But I suppose by your statement we need to met them first them wipe them out.
Humanity is fighting the same battles it did 500 years, 1000 years, 3000 years ago. If it is constantly evolving why, is the battle field the same?
The principles of the founding Fathers were over whelmingly based on the Judeo-Christian principles. From the writing of John Locke on government, who also authored a commentary on the book of Romans, and the ideals of Mayflower Compact, in 1620 that favored a elected representative government, as they found in Exodus 18:25,26.
We do not need the government approval of same sex marriage, it is bringing in the religious views that you abhor, but it the religious view of the secular left that wants to rewrite the law, and shove it in our face, to make change as they see fit, and not follow the traditional founding principles that you said we should follow.