[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272665]Marriage is about love and building a life with that person in our time and not about gender. It's not a different right because everyone should just understand that marriage is marriage, period.[/QUOTE]And rational people disagree with you.

[QUOTE]The problem is that you can't preemptively be discriminatory.[/QUOTE]Which we are not being, because we don't think of marriage the way you do.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272665]Marriage is about love[/QUOTE]

Are you sure? I notice, for example, that "love" does not enter the Wikipedia discussion of marriage until it gets to discussion in context of Roman Catholicism.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272667]And rational people disagree with you.

Which we are not being, because we don't think of marriage the way you do.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, first, how is that not rational? Second, how can you not think of marriage as about love and be human?

[QUOTE=wblipp;272681]Are you sure? I notice, for example, that "love" does not enter the Wikipedia discussion of marriage until it gets to discussion in context of Roman Catholicism.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage[/url][/QUOTE]I didn't say "historical marriages", but in this day and age, marriage is about love unless the person in question is up to something else unsavory or illegal. Why would you or anyone else want marriage to be about something else NOW that doesn't involve some biased or bigoted reasoning that is improper?

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272684]With all due respect, first, how is that not rational? Second, how can you not think of marriage as about love and be human?[/QUOTE]
Here, you appear to be claiming that your interpretation of "marriage" is rational.

Zeta-Flux did not, in any way, claim that your interpretation was irrational.
He did claim that there are other interpretations, and that there are rational people who believe in them.

You continue to fail to admit that, reasonably, anyone can have any interpretation of the term "marriage" other than the one which you choose,
and further, to accept that your interpretation is not the interpretation which is presently codified in the law.

This appears to me to be a very bigoted attitude.

Admit that you wish to have a different "right" recognized and make your case for its recognition. Don't try to co-opt an existing "right" by attempting to change its definition to suit your cause.

[QUOTE=Wacky;272698]Here, you appear to be claiming that your interpretation of "marriage" is rational.

Zeta-Flux did not, in any way, claim that your interpretation was irrational.
He did claim that there are other interpretations, and that there are rational people who believe in them.

You continue to fail to admit that, reasonably, anyone can have any interpretation of the term "marriage" other than the one which you choose,
and further, to accept that your interpretation is not the interpretation which is presently codified in the law.

This appears to me to be a very bigoted attitude.

Admit that you wish to have a different "right" recognized and make your case for its recognition. Don't try to co-opt an existing "right" by attempting to change its definition to suit your cause.[/QUOTE]If that's not what was meant, about it being irrational or not, I apologize. It was just, I think, an easily mistaken comparison to make. I just don't think it's reasonable, and maybe to me reasonable includes what I consider to be necessary components of marriage, to think of marriage without love unless you have ulterior motives. In that case, I don't think it's ok to call it a real marriage, even if it's legal. I do know that my view of it isn't the "codified" idea. Bigoted is the opposite of my idea, by definition, because I am trying to deal with the essence of what marriage is supposed to be, not just what words and laws are said to have it mean. If you don't include love and wanting to build a life with someone as the first proper definition of marriage, you might as well adopt the other person instead or even make a palimony agreement.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272774]If you don't include love and wanting to build a life with someone ...[/QUOTE]
Now, I think that it is appropriate to point to a logical fallacy.
I would say that you present an argument that marriage should include love, etc. -- Perhaps, more formally, that for a marriage relationship to be recognized by law, it should be a relationship based on love.

Let M represent "A relationship that should be allowed to be recognized as marriage", and
L represents "A relationship based on love and wanting to build a life with someone"

If we view your position, "M implies L",

we can conclude "Not L implies Not M". (Relationships lacking love ... should not be recognized as marriages.)

However, from the first, you seem to be arguing for
"R implies L", therefore "R implies M", where R is a properly committed same-sex relationship.

(Also, by the definition of bigotry, I am unconvinced that your attitude on "The definition of marriage" falls outside the requirements)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272432]Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what you are saying...[/QUOTE]

Let's put it in black and white:
The article I cited puts 25% of GAY Massachusetts teenagers as having "no fixed address". The same article puts the number for teenagers overall at, IIRC, 3%. You should have no trouble with the idea that these teens will not do as well in the various future measures of success as a consequence of their no longer sharing a house (or being able to share a house) with one and probably both parents.

Failure to accept gayness as normal causes real harm to gay children, RIGHT NOW, not in some possible future, by your own measures. Legalizing gay marriage is an important symbolic measure from the state indicating that being gay is, in fact, socially acceptable.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272818]Let's put it in black and white:
The article I cited puts 25% of GAY Massachusetts teenagers as having "no fixed address". The same article puts the number for teenagers overall at, IIRC, 3%. You should have no trouble with the idea that these teens will not do as well in the various future measures of success as a consequence of their no longer sharing a house (or being able to share a house) with one and probably both parents.

Failure to accept gayness as normal causes real harm to gay children, RIGHT NOW, not in some possible future, by your own measures. Legalizing gay marriage is an important symbolic measure from the state indicating that being gay is, in fact, socially acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Let me put it in black and white. Massachusetts already did what you suggested would be the cure to this ill--legalized same-sex marriage. I would suggest that your suggested cure does nothing to help the problem.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272838]Let me put it in black and white. Massachusetts already did what you suggested would be the cure to this ill--legalized same-sex marriage. I would suggest that your suggested cure does nothing to help the problem.[/QUOTE]

And your improved suggestion to help undo this harm is what? I didn't claim it was a panacea. This symbolic action will take some time to take effect, just as desegregation and equal opportunity took time to take effect.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272841]And your improved suggestion to help undo this harm is what?[/QUOTE]Parental training.