[QUOTE=Brian-E;272896]I would be interested to read your own views on who should and should not be allowed to marry by the way, Wacky, rather than only comments on the logic of what other people write. If you want to share those views, that is.:smile:[/QUOTE]

Although I believe that marriage is a religious sacrament limited to the joining of a man and a woman, I support the recognition of relationships in other communities which represent "permanent" commitments.

However, I do not think that, at this time in history, they can, properly, be called "marriage".

I support the advocacy of legal recognition of (some of) these relationships, but insist that such recognition should stand on the merits of benefit of that recognition to the society and not be based on the claim of "equal treatment" because these relationships are different.

Further, I find the false logic of Jwb52z offensive to the point that it biases me against other, better presented, arguments advocating the recognition of, and granting new rights to, those in such relationships.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272979]Why is the NIS allowed to use one definition that is different if I'm not and have both be valid somehow?[/QUOTE]

Because you are not stating, correctly, just what the NIS (or is it now ICE) is doing.

[QUOTE=Wacky;273325]I support the advocacy of legal recognition of (some of) these relationships, but insist that such recognition should stand on the merits of benefit of that recognition to the society and not be based on the claim of "equal treatment" because these relationships are different.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your reply. I'd like to ask you a bit more about the difference you refer to above. I see only one aspect which is different, namely: a committed pair of the opposite sex has the opportunity to bring up children who are the biological offspring of both of them, whereas any children of a same sex committed pair will be biologically the offspring of at least one outsider. Do you see any other difference(s) apart from this one?

Brian,

Although I support "the advocacy of legal recognition ...", I do not wish to be such an advocate, nor do I wish to advocate for the opposition.

I will point out that you are making an "equal treatment" argument rather than arguing an added value to society.

Also note that the distinction which you acknowledge may be sufficient basis for advocating the non-recognition of the relationship. -- The "we should not encourage something that will force us to choose the lesser of two evils" argument.

[QUOTE=Wacky;273327]Because you are not stating, correctly, just what the NIS (or is it now ICE) is doing.[/QUOTE]Well, then, perhaps you could enlighten me. If they're not making sure a marriage is real, which implies love and not a business deal, what are they doing?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;273372]Thanks for your reply. I'd like to ask you a bit more about the difference you refer to above. I see only one aspect which is different, namely: a committed pair of the opposite sex has the opportunity to bring up children who are the biological offspring of both of them, whereas any children of a same sex committed pair will be biologically the offspring of at least one outsider. Do you see any other difference(s) apart from this one?[/QUOTE]That one difference you mention will not be an issue for too many more years, really.

[QUOTE=Wacky;273399]Brian,

Although I support "the advocacy of legal recognition ...", I do not wish to be such an advocate, nor do I wish to advocate for the opposition.

I will point out that you are making an "equal treatment" argument rather than arguing an added value to society.

Also note that the distinction which you acknowledge may be sufficient basis for advocating the non-recognition of the relationship. -- The "we should not encourage something that will force us to choose the lesser of two evils" argument.[/QUOTE]Why would the supposed value you talk about be different or less or bad from a gay couple than from a straight one? That's a value judgement if I ever heard one, literally. Value judgements are biased, even if they're not moral values in question.

[QUOTE=Wacky;273399]Also note that the distinction which you acknowledge may be sufficient basis for advocating the non-recognition of the relationship. -- The "we should not encourage something that will force us to choose the lesser of two evils" argument.[/QUOTE]
This was in the context of a same sex couple not being able to bring up children who are the biological offspring of both of them, but I'm not sure what you mean by this reply. Which "two evils"? Could you make it a bit clearer so that I can understand?

[QUOTE]I will point out that you are making an "equal treatment" argument rather than arguing an added value to society.[/QUOTE]To add to Jwb52z' question about what value to society a straight married couple has over a gay married couple (I for one can't think of any), let me also point out some benefits to society of opening marriage to same sex couples. I may have been previously arguing from an "equal treatment" point of view, but equal treatment is itself initimately bound up with value to society. Point (1) is related to the equal treatment. The other points are extra.

(1) Persecution of LGBT-ers is rife. Not only adults, but children who start to feel same sex attraction are going through hell due to rejection by their family, lack of positive role models and self image, and vicious bullying from their peers. Some teenagers are driven to suicide, something which I believe the American public has become increasingly aware of in the last couple of years. The [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/10/04/new-york-student-suspended-for-saying-bullied-gay-teen-was-better-off-dead/"]latest example[/URL] of this to make world news illustrates once again the extreme viciousness in the homophobia of young Americans. Any reasonable person will agree that this problem [B]must[/B] be tackled as a matter of urgency for the good of society as a whole. The message has to be that some are people are different but this does not make them any less worthy. This message is of clear benefit to society. And the message will be reinforced (rather than confused or contradicted) if the law treats lesbian and gay people in the same way.

Caveat: changing the law does not in itself change people's attitudes. There will be a lot more work to be done. However, equal treatment in the law is a necessary condition for the ultimate societal acceptance of homosexuality and sexual diversity in general.

(2) There is a general shortage of couples and families who are willing and suitable to register for adoption agencies. These agencies rightly prefer or even require stable married couples as the adoptive parents. Allowing same sex couples to marry will add to the pool of potential adoptive families.

(3) If marriage is not open to same sex couples, many homosexual people marry someone of the opposite sex in order to conform. Some societies put so much emphasis on the importance of marriage that not marrying is simply not an option for young people. In nearly all societies it is a norm which is at least very hard to resist. Opposite sex marriages in which one partner is (secretly) homosexual will not be amongst the successful ones to put it mildly. Society has a clear benefit from marriages which are happy and lifelong (for example, providing stable parents to growing up children), and this means that people must not be forced into marriages which don't square with their nature.

[URL="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1207121301001/polygamists-want-equal-marriage-rights/?playlist_id=86923"]Polygamists ask for equal treatment[/URL]

[URL="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000513"]Ninth Circuit briefs[/URL]: Prop. 8 supporters file their appeal of Ware's ridiculous ruling that Walker was not obligated to disclose whether or not he wanted to get married, nor even to recuse himself even if he did want to get married. [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/279539/try-hypothetical-matthew-j-franck"]Try this hypothetical[/URL]. Other recent briefs include a response to the stay pending appeal on the Prop. 8 video releases [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/277691/order-unsealing-video-recording-anti-prop-8-trial-ed-whelan"]Some background on the video shenanigans.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;273946][URL="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1207121301001/polygamists-want-equal-marriage-rights/?playlist_id=86923"]Polygamists ask for equal treatment[/URL]

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/277691/order-unsealing-video-recording-anti-prop-8-trial-ed-whelan"][/URL][/QUOTE]

Fox "News", video only, not likely to get sued for slander if false....can you point to anything in writing, or is this just fear-mongering?

[QUOTE=Christenson;273957]Fox "News", video only, not likely to get sued for slander if false....can you point to anything in writing, or is this just fear-mongering?[/QUOTE]

It is a "slippery slope" argument.