wow! we're actually getting somewhere...I certainly did not think you were a "jack mormon", just thought that your geography implied you could visit Colorado City tomorrow (or at least Bryce Canyon) and be home by evening if you dropped everything...doubtful they'd let you in, though...

Claim: There's still significant discrimination against the non-married, and it shows up in inheritance, insurance benefits, and emergencies where a care-giver must suddenly be appointed. This is the basis of the civil rights arguments.

Claim: Being "gay" in terms of attraction is not really a choice...a little evidence in that direction: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/sex-hormones-may-sway-womens-career-choices-224406369.html[/url]

Claim: Marriage should certainly be about creating an optimum environment for raising children. I was very disappointed that the studies cited in "what is marriage" about stable, committed, two-parent families were not large enough to look at what happened when that solemn commitment was between two parties of the same sex. That experiment is now being carried out in some quarters; I hope it gets studied carefully.

Worth noting: The two-parent only, nuclear family, with kids leaving the house when they come "of age" is a 20th-century, post WW-II phenomenon. Also worth noting: Although divorce rates are higher than ever, which is a nice, shocking statistic about how the world is falling apart, couples are also staying married longer, on average, than ever before...because the partnerships are ending in the death of one partner much less often!

Of interest to all: [url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-trial-tapes-public-judge-rules-214323376.html[/url] We get to see what went on at the California trial...should be interesting....

[QUOTE=xilman;272050]You're probably aware that marriage in the UK is restricted to different sex couples as in most of the states of the US. Others reading this thread may not be.[/QUOTE]I could have sworn that the UK made gay marriage legal when I saw George Michael on TV getting married in the UK. When did that change?

[QUOTE=xilman;272084]Correct.
[The point of the separate institution is so that those, such as you, who require that marriage be restricted to opposite-sex couples have their desires met completely.

The separate institution of marklar allows those same-sex couples who wish to have specific and non-discriminatory treatment under the law, etc, also to have their desires met. It is specifically to distinguish the two institutions that I gave the requirement that marklar be [i]only[/i] available to same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples would be forbidden by law to marklar, in precisely the same way as same-sex couples would be forbidden to marry.

It seems to me that my proposition meets all your previously raised conditions for legally recognized marriage.


Paul

Paul[/QUOTE]I'm sure you probably know that the whole idea of "separate but equal" never really worked very well in the US in anything.

[QUOTE]Of interest to all: [url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriag...214323376.html[/url] We get to see what went on at the California trial...should be interesting.... [/QUOTE]This decision will almost certainly be overturned, just as Walker's initial decision to broadcast the trial was overturned and other shenanigans he tried to pull. [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/277691/order-unsealing-video-recording-anti-prop-8-trial-ed-whelan"]Some of the background on the decision.[/URL]

It's a funny thing...but I've talked to one or two wierdos (and the interviews I've seen with Goatse, another famous wierdo) and found most of them just as inflexible about what might be sex and what might be too icky to consider as anyone else.....

I'd be interested to see if substantive protective orders have actually been required for any witnesses in a "pro-family" expert role....I do know that so-called "anti-family" doctors leading significantly more private lives have been killed. Absent that kind of actual evidence, the background in the national review (I was hoping NRO meant national reconnaissance office!) seems like grandstanding. But it is excellent evidence of the fear involved, and fear never makes for good decisions.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272101]I could have sworn that the UK made gay marriage legal when I saw George Michael on TV getting married in the UK. When did that change?[/QUOTE]The arrangement is called a "civil union" and there are still significant differences between it and marriage. By coincidence, over the last few days the British news has been covering a political initiative to remove the remaining differences.

One difference is that a civil union may not be performed in a religious establishment. A church can, but need not, marry people. A proposal is that the same right, but not obligation, be extended to civil unions.

There are, of course, other differences.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;272119]The arrangement is called a "civil union" and there are still significant differences between it and marriage. By coincidence, over the last few days the British news has been covering a political initiative to remove the remaining differences.

One difference is that a civil union may not be performed in a religious establishment. A church can, but need not, marry people. A proposal is that the same right, but not obligation, be extended to civil unions.

There are, of course, other differences.

Paul[/QUOTE]Ok, somehow I guess I missed that they were only civil unions in the UK. Oh well...thanks for clarifying it for me.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272091]And that is mostly what I have against gay marriage. In my opinion, from how I've seen the courts in states impose gay marriage, I think they will likely start imposing other forms of marriage.[/QUOTE]OK, I think I understand your position now.

If I've got it right, you are not opposed to gay marriage [i]per se[/i] but are afraid of mission creep if it were to become widespread in the US. Is that a fair summary?

Paul

Tricky questions
 

[QUOTE=wblipp;272086]
I don't have well stated answer for why homosexual marriage makes sense and polygamous marriage does not. I think it has to do with the kind of society I want to live in, and the collateral damage to other institutions caused by alternatives. I'll mostly lurk until I have something worthwhile to say.[/QUOTE]

"Equality of the sexes" and "One man one vote" come to mind.

We all find euthanasia tricky.
My father's answer invariably ended with "you would have killed
Beethoven".

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;272249]"you would have killed
Beethoven".

David[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsp4VCbVvn4"]...and tell Tchaikovsk[/URL][U]y [/U][U]Toulouse[/U]

[QUOTE=xilman;272239]OK, I think I understand your position now.

If I've got it right, you are not opposed to gay marriage [i]per se[/i] but are afraid of mission creep if it were to become widespread in the US. Is that a fair summary?

Paul[/QUOTE]Am I the only one who doesn't know what "mission creep" means?