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
- 1470 Views
the problem with your friend is the "southern evangelical christian" part
17/01/2010 09:07:02 AM
- 778 Views
They believe gay marriage is ongoing unrepentant sin.
17/01/2010 12:04:58 PM
- 773 Views
God your a moron.
17/01/2010 09:10:17 PM
- 729 Views
That was remarkably unconstructive.
18/01/2010 12:13:45 AM
- 591 Views
youll have to excuse Adam, he is a Heathen, its not his fault
*NM*
18/01/2010 06:26:34 AM
- 283 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
- 615 Views
<shrug> They can believe that all that they like
18/01/2010 08:07:28 PM
- 685 Views
And live accordingly. Just like everyone else.
18/01/2010 11:10:51 PM
- 688 Views
You can't use logic in an irrational argument.
17/01/2010 10:12:11 AM
- 672 Views
LOL... *NM*
18/01/2010 05:21:14 AM
- 370 Views
You and Adam are being equally unconstructive.
18/01/2010 06:21:45 AM
- 587 Views
First, I'm nothing at all like Adam.
18/01/2010 06:33:54 AM
- 658 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
- 753 Views
Not much of a friend then. Good ridance to bad friends. *NM*
17/01/2010 08:51:02 PM
- 433 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
- 291 Views
seriously. *NM*
17/01/2010 10:46:17 PM
- 250 Views
Only because such sentiment is my pet peeve...condemning exclusivity is hypocritical. *NM*
19/01/2010 12:37:37 AM
- 316 Views
It forces other people to accept THEIR ideology that same sex unions are legitimate.
18/01/2010 01:49:20 AM
- 771 Views
I would assume, then, that you don't support any government-mandated health care?
18/01/2010 02:07:40 AM
- 591 Views
Correct
18/01/2010 04:29:04 AM
- 675 Views
Although I disagree with the vast majority of your arguments,
18/01/2010 08:50:09 AM
- 648 Views
Thank you.
20/01/2010 01:47:34 AM
- 818 Views
Please tell me you have a source for that quotation. Other than me.
21/01/2010 12:31:27 PM
- 685 Views
It's GK Chesterton! What the hell are you going on about?
27/01/2010 02:41:00 AM
- 560 Views
we do not exist in a free market.
18/01/2010 04:09:37 AM
- 602 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
- 299 Views
I am simply pointing out your arguments do not apply to the present economic environment.
18/01/2010 04:46:04 AM
- 552 Views
That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:19:57 AM
- 633 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:41:27 AM
- 648 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 07:13:54 AM
- 640 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
19/01/2010 10:59:45 PM
- 599 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 07:15:50 AM
- 719 Views
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
18/01/2010 07:49:27 AM
- 627 Views

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

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