To respond to Zac who stated: “The argument against Loving in Loving V. Virginia was that GOD disapproved of interracial marriage (sounds familiar, no?). Luckily the United States constitution has already made clear that “Morals” and “God’s Word” do not justify discrimination and preventing equal rights to all Americans.”

Interracial marriage was a legitimate civil rights issue. It cannot appropriately be used as an argument for same-sex “marriage” as a civil rights issue because those challenging bans on interracial marriages did not seek to redefine marriage; they just wanted to remove the restrictions placed on which woman could marry which man. Overturning laws forbidding interracial marriages would not stand as legal (constitutional) precedent for same-sex “marriage” lawsuits.

Its important to understand why government is in the marriage business in the first place. Anytime people join together, combine efforts of survival and work for common goals, they are healthier and more productive. They save more, spend more and accomplish more. It IS in society’s best interest that people pair up. Other than that, marriage holds no value to any community outside the value to the persons involved. Gays and non gays, in this respect, meet the criteria for state recognized marriage. Religious services are NOT at the heart of this discussion and neither are children. The proof is that both may or may not exist in non gay marriages and they are still valid and have purpose to the state. And because gays contribute to the state as much as you and your wife, they are entitled to full protection of the Constitution.

The argument against Loving in Loving V. Virginia was that GOD disapproved of interracial marriage (sounds familiar, no?). Luckily the United States constitution has already made clear that “Morals” and “God’s Word” do not justify discrimination and preventing equal rights to all Americans.

For instance, should then your religious choice become a civil rights issue as well? So, say you choose to be a polygamist, due to religious preference, should society allow that as well? Last I checked we don’t.

And why is it that 100,000 marching is as impressive and should carry as much weight as the 52% of Californians (numbering in the millions) who voted for Prop 8.

I’d say these sorry sore losers need to pick up like there “so called Mormon” brothers and sisters did who wanted to practice polygamy and isolate themselves in small communities, where others will treat their choices as normal or shut up and accept like all the republicans did that Barack Obama was elected president.

Love the sinner, hate and abhor the sin.

I forgot to ask what does qualify someone to write about these issues? I’d be interested in your thoughts on that as well.

I’m being facetious with my high school political science comment (I wrote that so as to not overstate my qualifications about politics). Of course I’m not an expert in political science, nor have I held any governmental position but I research all sides of issues and never vote without having done all the research I can reasonably do about issues or people.

If the main purpose of marriage is not to have children, then what is the main purpose? I’m interested in your view on the matter.

To protogenes:

I’d appreciate a detailed description of the holes in my logic so I can fix them and improve my post. I’m serious. Please point out all of my logical fallacies, poor deduction or induction, false premises, and false conclusions (although those last two do not have to do with logic because you can have faulty premises or a false conclusion and yet have a logically-valid argument; logic is distinct from truth. An argument that is valid and has all true premises is called sound). I wrote the post quickly without edits so I might have some “gaping holes in logic.” I prefer a proof in truth-functional notation refuting the logic of my argument. Again, this should be limited to the logic of my post, not your opinion of the content of my post.

I’m glad I could provide you some entertainment though.

Oh please do. You gaping holes in logic are most entertaining.