These are not straw man arguments - these are the arguments put forth by the lawyers and AGs in the cases argued in front of state supreme courts, circuit courts, and SCOTUS.
These issues were argued in court. Expert witnesses testified. Studies and data and briefs were introduced and examined. The conclusion was that there was little or no evidence that gay marriage would be a problem, much less a problem which would rise to a level that would justify restrictions on gay marriage. Again, read the decisions.
Your taxpayer dollars are not being spent to promote/support gay marriage - they're being spent to promote marriage. If you're fine with supporting marriage, but not gay marriage, I have to ask if you think you're any different than a person who supports marriage, but not interracial marriage. (You've familiar with Loving v Virginia, right?) Or marriage, but not interdenominational marriage.
Defining marriage in a way that includes same sex couples is "right" because it does not unconstitutionally deprive same sex people of their constitutional rights. I have been pro-gay marriage since the issue was first brought to my attention. My first real exposure to the issue was through my cousin when I was in high school back in the early 1980s, and reinforced a bit later when I took a course from Karen Thompson. http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Sharon-Kowalski-Come-Home/dp/0933216467
The government does not have to be involved in the institution of marriage. If it chooses to, it should do so without discriminating against gay marriage.
> These are not straw man arguments - these are the arguments put forth by the lawyers and AGs in the cases argued in front of state supreme courts, circuit courts, and SCOTUS. > These issues were argued in court. Expert witnesses testified. Studies and data and briefs were introduced and examined. The conclusion was that there was little or no evidence that gay marriage would be a problem, much less a problem which would rise to a level that would justify restrictions on gay marriage. Again, read the decisions.
And for the third time, I'm not interested in one specific opinion. The opinions I've stated at least twice now are reasonable opinions to hold, and they have not been disproven. Also, the implication seems to be that because these cases lost, that means the arguments are invalid. That's not the case.
>Your taxpayer dollars are not being spent to promote/support gay marriage - they're being spent to promote marriage. If you're fine with supporting marriage, but not gay marriage, I have to ask if you think you're any different than a person who supports marriage, but not interracial marriage. (You've familiar with Loving v Virginia, right?) Or marriage, but not interdenominational marriage.
Well my preference is the government get out of the marriage business all together. My secondary preference is to leave it up to the states, because I'm not so much arguing that gay marriage is bad, but just that thinking gay marriage is less beneficial to society than heterosexual marriage is a reasonable position to hold. Personally I'm torn because I do think marriage is important, and part of me is glad that gay people care enough about marriage to fight for it. As I've said a couple times now, I'm not sure if on net gay marriage will be good for the institution in the long run.
But no, being against gay marriage is nothing like being against interracial marriage, because there are material differences between men and women, not between whites and blacks. And there are material differences between gay couples and straight couples, but not between interracial and intraracial couples. Race is purely aesthetic, which makes any discrimination due solely to race immoral.
>Defining marriage in a way that includes same sex couples is "right" because it does not unconstitutionally deprive same sex people of their constitutional rights. I have been pro-gay marriage since the issue was first brought to my attention. My first real exposure to the issue was through my cousin when I was in high school back in the early 1980s, and reinforced a bit later when I took a course from Karen Thompson. http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Sharon-Kowalski-Come-Home/dp/0933216467
But your definition precludes polyamorous marriage, interspecies marriage, etc. And NO I'm not saying they are identical to gay marriage, but the point is there's nothing fundamentally different about drawing the line at homosexuality than there is about drawing the line basically anywhere else. The principles are the same. The only differences you will be able to claim will be subjective ("damn good reason").
>The government does not have to be involved in the institution of marriage. If it chooses to, it should do so without discriminating against gay marriage.
Again, says you... quite arbitrarily. In order to say this definitively, you have to assume that gay marriages are identical to straight marriages and they aren't. When gay marriages start producing children at any sort of significant rate, you'd have a point. But while there is an actual difference between gay and straight marriages, then the issue is not so black and white.