But what is a crucial gender role that applies to all relationships?

In American culture people are actually expected to interact with each other without regard to gender in all manners of public discourse. Mr. Bush is expected to interact with Ms. Rice in the same manner as with Mr. Powell. One would probably believe all Americans, including Mr. Medved, would agree that is the case because there is no crucial gender role in that relationship. It is a fundamental American value that there is not a ‘gender role’, the opposite of Mr. Medved’s statement.

Mr. Hispanicpundit asserts this American denial of ‘gender role’, but turns to gender itself. Gender makes people “by nature different in how we see and take in the world”. Mr. Hispanicpundit would expect Mr. Medved to interact with Mr. Bush in the same manner if he was married to Ms. Rice instead of the current Mrs. Bush. Both women presumably share the same ‘take on the world’ despite any other factors.

It seems he would have a different expectation of him if Mr. Bush were married to Mr. Powell instead of Ms. Rice. ‘The continuation of civilization’ is threatened if Mr. Medved interacted with a Mr. Bush married to Mr. Powell, presumably because Mr. Powell cannot have the ‘take on the world’ universal among women. Otherwise, this valuing of the differing natures of the genders is not relevent.

Should one choose to allow for the possibility that Mrs. Bush, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Powell would each bring a unique insight into the world to their marriage, what but the potential procreative act drives the differences expected of Mr. Medved’s interactions with Mr. Bush? Mr. Medved must then be expected to meditate upon the these intercourses before interacting with Mr. Bush, and doesn’t that compel those interactions to be considered a public rather than private matter?

It seems Mr. Medved must be consigned to a society that uses its instrument, the state, to publicize the specifics of its members’ relations if he is to properly meet the expectations being made of him. He must be assured Mr. Bush has selected a suitable spouse and applied for government certification that their sexual congresses are for the production of children, lest the entire program become of a uncertain or prejudicial nature.

No part discusses marriage. Polygamists use this fact to argue in favor of their marriages.

Btw, what part of the Constitution discusses marriage, or legal drinking ages?

There is a rooted in nature difference between a man and a woman. The two of them, for one, could produce children, and therefore their union, even by evolutionary standards, is unique. Marriage has always been tied to the nuclear family, and therefore has some connection to the procreation of children.

When opponents of gay marriage deny marriage to gay people, they are using the same logic that one would use denying marriage to polygamists (although, I admit, on less firm ground). They are basing it on family and children, and the continuation of civilization. Opponents of gay marriage would use the same logic to forbid gays to marry that they would use to forbid polygamists, very early teen marriages, incestual marriages, etc…But one can’t do it with regard to interracial marriages. There is nothing fundamentally different from a black man and a white one, for example, as far as the qualifications above go. So no, there is no slippery slope from anti-gay marriage to anti-interracial marriages.

Think of it this way, are you against polygamy? If so, is that a slippery slope towards a ban on interracial marriages? Of course not - well the same with bans on gay marriage.

Ahh, the polygamy argument. The old slippery slope that if you allow gay marriage you must allow polygamy, doesn’t the slippery slope work the other way, if you are in favor of banning gay marriage why not ban interracial marriage. Its the same logic.

Not necessarily. We as a society withhold certain rights and privileges all the time on certain groups without being “anti-group.” Young adults (under 21) are not legally allowed to buy or consume alcohol, but that doesn’t mean that society is against people who are under 21.

It is debatable if same-sex marriages are a or should be a Constitutional Right or if they should be allowed for local governments to decide. In other words, there is no explicit guarantee or Constitutional Right for homosexuals to marry, so there is no denial of any right. How can something be denied if it isn’t there to begin with?

Personally, I have no problem with homosexuals getting married and having their marriage recognized by the state, but if someone else doesn’t agree, that doesn’t make them automatically anti-homosexual.