I knew you wouldn’t let me down. You’ve always been one of my more articulate and well reasoned opponents (if only I could get you on my side - we’d be unstoppable!! ) and you showed that again on this topic.

This secular argument would have more chance as being viewed as free from irrational prejudice if he would deny legal marriage to all couples incapable of producing offspring.

It may be nearly impossible to determine fertility accurately, there would be no way for a clerk at the county courthouse to do so, and people might lie about their fertility in order to get married anyway, all of which make the fertility requirement much more difficult to enforce than opposite-sex without even necessarily being more beneficial.

In addition it could just as easily be argued that a restriction that increases the administrative difficulty for an extremely small number of cases just isn’t worth it. A policy doesn’t have to be absolutely fair and equal; it just has to be a sufficiently reasonable effort to address the underlying policy concern.

And what of those non-gay couples that do not spawn children out of choice? Would he demand that they repay, with interest, society’s “investment?”

Or what about those married couples that do have children but treat that child badly, thereby voiding the investment society had in that couple.

Like investments in all other areas, you are not guaranteed to reap rewards in every particular case; it is more an investment as a whole.

What evidence does he offer to support the allowance of gay marriage will result in “open discrimination” of those who disagree with it. He offers none.

I wouldn’t say I offered none. I quoted a Professor of Law At Harvard University, which hardly qualifies as ‘none’. Granted, I am somewhat appealing to authority here, but for a Professor at a respectable university to go on record, in the editorial section of a major news organization, and make a wide general statement like that, is to imply that the evidence is there (which it is, but I’d rather avoid the work of detailing it all, if I can).

This also makes logical sense (to me atleast). It is a fact that several people in society equate being against gay marriage with being against interracial marriages and what not (I sure hope you don’t - but if you do, let me know so we can discuss the differences). The average person doesn’t distinguish between benign attributes (skin color, gender etc), to those of behavior. Homosexuality, good or bad, is a behavioral attribute. And when you are discussing gay marriage, you are judging one action over another, which is not the case when you are discussing interracial marriages. For example, if I wanted to learn to fly, I would not hire a blind person to teach me. That doesn’t mean I am prejudice against blind people, it just means that given my objective, blind people are a priori disqualified because they are unqualified given my objective. The same is true with marriage, the objective of government through marriage is the overall betterment and protection of societies future citizens (one of the governments primary objectives, btw) and given that objective homosexual marriages don’t qualify.

Given this public ignorance, I see it as a perfectly legitimate risk that politicians will use it to their own political advantage at the expense of religious freedom. Granted it’s a slippery slope, but it’s a realistic slippery slope, IMHO.

(which is further proved by the undertone in your response, that my arguments against gay marriage are really based on religious beliefs, yet I never relied on any religious arguments in my case above - several people just don’t know that there is a logical unreligious argument against gay marriage - they assume all argument against gay marriage is essentially a deep homophobia in the person and nothing short of bigotry - so they will fight hard to remove it where ever they see it - even in religious institutions)

It would appear that while HP is against special treatment of “minorities,” vis-a-vis affirmative action, he is for special treatment of the conservative religious right.

Was this statement purely rhetorical, or do you mean what you say? Can I flip it on you and say, since you claim to be for ‘fair treatment’ with regard to gay marriage, does that also mean you are against affirmative action based on fair treatment principle? Or does this statement only work in one direction.

But to answer your statement, a conservative is for fair treatment in all forms. I have no problem, and no one should have a problem, with extending marriage to new areas where the same objective is met. For example, interracial couples were forbidden to marry for several decades in this country and they clearly satisfied the objective of marriage just like everyone else, so I completely agree with that change in the definition of marriage. But homosexual marriages, like polygamists(do you also support polygamy, if not why not?), don’t satisfy the objective of marriage and therefore should not be included in its definition.

Before I conclude, let me turn the tables and ask you what reasons you have to allow gays to marry. It is a fact that being bestowed the honor of being married entails a government expense that the rest of the public has to pay for. You may say that the current marriage situation has holes in it, but that is not reason enough to have more government spending. The reason I usually see in support of marriage to include gay couples are because of ‘love’. Proponents of gay marriage will argue endlessly about how gay couples love each other as much as heterosexual couples, therefore they should also be included in the marriage act. I do not call into question gay couples love for each other, but I sure hope a (presumably) liberal like you would agree with the general principle that love (arguably a religious issue) should not be the reason government is involved in marriage in the first place. If that is all marriage breaks down, you have a reason to remove marriage from the government sector, not include gays in it (which is why I believe proponents of gay marriage have a much stronger case removing marriage completely from government than to be included in the current definition of marriage). In other words, government waste in one area does not justify government waste in another area.

In conclusion, essentially the gay marriage debate comes down to a choice of keeping the admittedly shaky ground marriage is currently on (damn ‘no fault’ divorce!!!), or to strip it of whatever objectivity it had left and open the door to who ever and what ever group of people want in (polygamists, etc). I choose the former.

PS: What’s up with the third person response? The ‘he’ you are referring to is I, so why not simply say YOU (as in me)? Not a big deal, just curious really. I don’t remember you doing third person responses in our previous dialogues.

What of infertile wives and fathers who “shot blanks?” Would he deny them the right to be legally married? And what of those non-gay couples that do not spawn children out of choice? Would he demand that they repay, with interest, society’s “investment?” I highly doubt that he would, just as I doubt that his objection to gay marriage spawns from secular reasoning. Consequently, I find HP’s “societal investment” argument to deny gay marriage to be inconsistent, poorly reasoned, and ineffective.

Further more, HP concludes that those who are religious have much to fear from legal gay marriage. He argues that if gay marriage is allowed in society that “everyone and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against.” Indeed, he warns us that the “ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along” (presumably) with gay marriage.

What evidence does he offer to support the allowance of gay marriage will result in “open discrimination” of those who disagree with it. He offers none. But let us suppose that he is correct, and that religious people will be discriminated against unfairly and unlawfully. Are there not laws that prevent unlawful discrimination? Of course there are, and these anti-discrimination laws are often championed by right wing conservatives who argue that racial discrimination by and large is no longer an issue in the U.S.

It is more than a bit comical to see a self-professed conservative pulling out the “religious-card” to quell discrimination that has not even occurred. The right winged conservative religious victicrat mentality working overtime, I suppose.

If there were to be any discrimination those who are religious have legal recourses, just like anyone else. It would appear that while HP is against special treatment of “minorities,” vis-a-vis affirmative action, he is for special treatment of the conservative religious right.

Will he admit to his hypocrisy?