[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I don't really see this point as being too relevant. If I want to propose something that makes it easier to get funding for college, you couldn't argue against it by saying "so what, the graduation rate is only 70%, the whole system's going to hell". I don't think the people who don't support gay marriage do support spousal abuse. Also I doubt it's as easy to solve the high divorce rate as it would be this issue.

The relevance is glaring. If people who oppose same sex marriage frame their stance as a "defense of marriage" - as the name of the federal act passed under the Clinton administration states - then clearly they're framing their concern as being the defense of the sacred institution of marriage, yes? So what seems to be a bigger threat to the institution of marriage? A same sex couple entering into a loving, life-long partnership that will contribute to society in the same way that studies across the board have shown the vast majority of married couples do? Or would it be the alarming rise in divorce rates that currently stands at a bit over 40%, or maybe the flippant attitudes toward marriage that lead to things like drunken shotgun weddings in Vegas, or maybe spousal abuse which looks to affect around 10% of the entire U.S. population right now? Clearly, the interest isn't actually in defending the institution of marriage, because if it was, then these people would be focused on legitimate threats, not gay people who are in love and simply want to be able to get married.

As for your college analogy, I can't seem to make heads or tails of it. But I can say that I never claimed anti-same sex marriage people "support spousal abuse" - no one said anything of the sort. But for people who are so adamant about "defending marriage", it is odd that they're so much more vocal and active about stopping same sex marriage than they are about dealing with issues like abuse.

It all adds up to further evidence that this issue really boils down to ignorance, homophobia, and bigotry for a large portion of people who oppose it.

How that can be irrelevant to you is beyond me.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Okay, you said that the individual issues of each possibility would have to be addressed. Let's say you want to be a polygamist. What are the health, consent, or common species arguments against that? Or if you wanted to marry your sister? (you know, provided you wouldn't be having kids). As for the other argument, it depends on what you're looking for as 'in common'. You say a gay couple has more in common with a straight couple than a man/beast one? That's true, but I could argue that a brother/sister relationship has more in common with a straight couple than the gay one does.

So then argue that point, please. Don't just say you could while failing to directly address the specific points I've raised, or the specific answers I've provided to your many questions,

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I do have a different definition than you. Because I don't really consider marriage a civil right any more than getting a hunting license is.

Not just a different definition than me, but a different definition than what the actual definition is. You've made up your own definition of what civil rights are to the point that you've claimed legalizing interracial marriage was not a civil rights issue. That's pretty amazing to me. And frankly, if you approach issues so loosely that you redefine things on that level, then it's impossible to have any meaningful dialogue about it.

Let me try to explain it this way. Marriage is not technically, in and of itself, a civil right. Getting a hunting license is not technically, in and of itself a civil right. But denying someone the right to get married or acquire a hunting license because they're a member of a minority group makes these civil rights issues. So it's not about the rights themselves as much as the denial of basic rights for minorities that are enjoyed by the overwhelming majority. It's about equality.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Again, I'm not really seeing it as an equality issue; I can't marry another guy either.

You're focusing on a very narrow and convenient aspect of the issue to suit your argument. Sure you can't marry another guy, but do you want to? If you fall in love with someone and decide you want to make a life-long commitment to them, legally and publicly accepting them into your life as a new family member, I assume that person would be a woman for you, and you can do that. So sure, you can't marry another dude and that means nothing to you because you would never want to. But if someone who is genetically predisposed to loving someone of the same sex (as a little under 10% of the population is) wants to make that same commitment to their partner, they can't, and it means a lot to them.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Do you think that it's a civil rights violation that not everyone can run for President?

No, because I actually understand what civil rights are.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not making point of beastiality to equate the two issues. I'm saying that in both cases, they are essentially arguing to change the rules of marriage as they exist now.

Aside from the Defense of Marriage act, where are these "rules" written that you've raised a few times now? And why would they be exempt from being amended as all "rules" throughout history have been to address contemporary reality? It used to be a generally accepted "rule" that the Earth was at the center of creation, with the sun, planets, and the infinite universe orbiting the all-important human species. Or that hard labor was done by slaves. Or that interracial marriages aren't allowed. But all of those "rules" were found to be seriously flawed, and were changed. What's different about this one?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not going to argue against gay marriage because I don't really believe the reasons that there are against it, but I would say one of the best arguments against it would be to say it's not necessary. The law allows me to smoke tobacco, but not marijuana; do I feel like I have the right to smoke marijuana if that's my preference? The point is I don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now. They are trying to legislate the rights of "couples", which I think itself would need to be defined before going further. I think the idea of a "couple" is too abstract right now and can lead to some of the issues I related above.

"It's not necessary"? That's the best argument against it? Well, hetero marriage isn't technically "necessary" either, so why does marriage exist at all? If, after everything that's been raised, that's the best argument against same sex marriage, then I think we've pretty clearly established that there are no good arguments against it. And despite the fact that you "don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now", there is. I base that on simple things called "facts". They don't have the right to legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that come with it, regardless of how you "feel".