1) It has no history because homosexuality has historically been forbidden and/or persecuted by governments (usually "high-minded" religious politicians). Thus, your argument on that point falls apart because the world (or in this case the nation) is in a unique position to finally extend the right of recognized union to homosexuals for the first time.
They have the EXACT same rights of recognized union. The practice of marriage has little to do with sexual preference and feelings, and everything to do with involuntary reproduction. One could argue that in the modern world, its perquisties are obsolete, and require LESS legal enforcement, not more widespread.2) It would not be pointless if you are of the persuasion that certain tax benefits are gained through marriage for the sake of having children. I do not know whether you support this theory or not, but for those who do argue this direction then gay marriage would provide the same benefits given that the gay couple adopt. My own response to such people who argue against gay marriage by using this '"incentive to procreate" argument is that if the theory were true then such benefits should be taken from heterosexual couples who don't have children in a reasonable amount of time (naturally or by many of the same methods gays could use). If you do not subscribe to the "incentive" theory then ignore this.
I do not so subscribe. In any event I am not sure what you are talking about. As far as I understand it, if you have dependant children, you get the tax break, regardless of your sexuality or marital status. As it should be. As far as I am concerned, special legal exemptions for married people in an otherwise oppressive or restrictive law or government policy are merely sops to get people to aquiesce to an unjust infringement of their liberties or usurpation of property. Removing such breaks and loopholes keeps the pressure up and will cause greater dissatisfaction with wrongful policies. Therefore, I am naturally opposed to this sort of measure. What they do is make different groups jon in the scramble for their goverment masters' table scraps, as in the case of same-sex marriage - homosexuals rightfully seeking to hand over less of their money to the government, rather than opposing the tax in the first place, instead are diverted by the brass ring of marriage exemptions. Rather than try to right the course of the ship away from the reefs, instead they are demanding a seat on the life boat. 3) "...attempts to force every one to conform to their view". You know this describes every law, right?
And? What is your point? That is EXACTLY what law is. Any more insights like "people die in war"? If you are attempting to accuse me of some sort of hypocrisy, you would have to cite a law of which I have expressed approval. Good luck. As far as this point applies to the issue at hand, because of this essential nature of laws, they should only be enacted to support practices or customs in place, and to recognize them as such or correct grave injustices. When both parties have the same rights (any man may marry any woman, and vice versa, regardless of their respective sexual orientation, and neither homo- nor heterosexuals may marry someone of the same sex ), and there is no history or tradition of carrying out a particular practice, it should not be enshrined in law, particularly if it will only benefit a few to the detriment of many.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
This message last edited by Cannoli on 20/01/2010 at 12:25:07 AM
I may have lost a friend over same sex marriage
17/01/2010 08:03:26 AM
- 1483 Views
the problem with your friend is the "southern evangelical christian" part
17/01/2010 09:07:02 AM
- 793 Views
They believe gay marriage is ongoing unrepentant sin.
17/01/2010 12:04:58 PM
- 787 Views
God your a moron.
17/01/2010 09:10:17 PM
- 742 Views
That was remarkably unconstructive.
18/01/2010 12:13:45 AM
- 606 Views
youll have to excuse Adam, he is a Heathen, its not his fault
*NM*
18/01/2010 06:26:34 AM
- 288 Views

Ad hominems w/o substance are never excusable, especially in one who knows beter: They're forfeits.
18/01/2010 06:39:33 AM
- 627 Views
<shrug> They can believe that all that they like
18/01/2010 08:07:28 PM
- 700 Views
And live accordingly. Just like everyone else.
18/01/2010 11:10:51 PM
- 701 Views
You can't use logic in an irrational argument.
17/01/2010 10:12:11 AM
- 685 Views
LOL... *NM*
18/01/2010 05:21:14 AM
- 379 Views
You and Adam are being equally unconstructive.
18/01/2010 06:21:45 AM
- 601 Views
First, I'm nothing at all like Adam.
18/01/2010 06:33:54 AM
- 672 Views
I was similarly unclear what prompted the comments, but I only needed you to elaborate a little.
18/01/2010 07:37:43 AM
- 770 Views
Not much of a friend then. Good ridance to bad friends. *NM*
17/01/2010 08:51:02 PM
- 439 Views
I agree. A friend who can't respect differences of opinion is no friend at all. *NM*
17/01/2010 09:11:33 PM
- 299 Views
seriously. *NM*
17/01/2010 10:46:17 PM
- 256 Views
Only because such sentiment is my pet peeve...condemning exclusivity is hypocritical. *NM*
19/01/2010 12:37:37 AM
- 321 Views
It forces other people to accept THEIR ideology that same sex unions are legitimate.
18/01/2010 01:49:20 AM
- 787 Views
I would assume, then, that you don't support any government-mandated health care?
18/01/2010 02:07:40 AM
- 603 Views
Correct
18/01/2010 04:29:04 AM
- 689 Views
Although I disagree with the vast majority of your arguments,
18/01/2010 08:50:09 AM
- 666 Views
Thank you.
20/01/2010 01:47:34 AM
- 831 Views
Please tell me you have a source for that quotation. Other than me.
21/01/2010 12:31:27 PM
- 699 Views
It's GK Chesterton! What the hell are you going on about?
27/01/2010 02:41:00 AM
- 573 Views
we do not exist in a free market.
18/01/2010 04:09:37 AM
- 616 Views
And that's bad. Since when has the correct response to oppression been "accept further oppression"? *NM*
18/01/2010 04:30:44 AM
- 304 Views
I am simply pointing out your arguments do not apply to the present economic environment.
18/01/2010 04:46:04 AM
- 566 Views
That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:19:57 AM
- 645 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:41:27 AM
- 664 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 07:13:54 AM
- 651 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
19/01/2010 10:59:45 PM
- 612 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 07:15:50 AM
- 743 Views
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
18/01/2010 07:49:27 AM
- 641 Views

I really dont like the idea of a black person marrying a white person
18/01/2010 06:36:26 AM
- 714 Views
That's such an amusing argument
18/01/2010 08:17:15 PM
- 600 Views
And you're fairly appalling in either pretending to misunderstand free markets or in your stupidity
27/01/2010 03:00:21 AM
- 806 Views
I'm against people with pasta based nicknames on fantasy forums *NM*
19/01/2010 03:03:31 PM
- 264 Views
cannoli is a pastry
*NM*
19/01/2010 07:25:04 PM
- 240 Views

I have no problem with people with pastry based names, just pasta
21/01/2010 12:28:44 AM
- 567 Views
you acept your friends with their warts or you don't
18/01/2010 06:45:13 PM
- 710 Views
I think you missed who was the one to walk out *NM*
18/01/2010 08:01:25 PM
- 223 Views
I don't think it was that clear
18/01/2010 10:01:32 PM
- 633 Views