Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

I hate arguments. My patience for them was exhausted long ago, and I believe that, in the end, they are mostly a waste of time. However, I have, against my own better judgement, started reading this thread and, again, against my own better judgement, decided to post something about it.

I have to comment on some of Chevalier´s statements.

Yes, I know, I know. Everyone else and their uncle has done this already. Well, sorry, but I find that I can´t simply sit here and not challenge some of the things you´ve said. I guess I must be judgemental.

"Basically, there's no tolerance for opposition to tolerance activists and it's tolerance activists who decide the extent of tolerance to apply, and there are no formalised criteria for that. Ergo: it's their discretionary competence. Ergo: it relies on their judgement. They use it, ergo: they rely on that judgement, ergo: they judge. A lot. Done with that."

That same argument could be applied in your case. As I see it, for instance, you have made it very clear that you are convinced (that you *know*) that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that homosexuals are deviants. Not normal, at least as far as the consensus of "normality" goes. However, we also know that psychiatrists no longer consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. One would think that actual experts on the subject of mental health would know better about this case than the rest of us. I cannot claim that you are not an expert on the field of mental health, but since you have never claimed to be one, I will assume that you are not. I seem to recall that you have stated to *know* that homosexuality is a mental disorder in spite of what the world medical community may have to say about it, that you have not seen convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, your position might seem to be a case of "guilty until proven innocent". Thus far, for whatever reason, you have not backed up your opinion with anything other than your own logical arguments, which apparently have not proven to be conclusive, as they continue to be challenged. To a casual observer, it might appear as though you are merely presenting your own opinion as fact, and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that contrary opinions could have some merit to them. Thus:

You have no way of actually proving that homosexuality is a mental disorder, ergo, your claim that that it is is your own discretion. Ergo: you rely on your judgement. You use it. Ergo: you rely on that judgement. Ergo: you judge.

Tell me, if enough evidence were to surface that would prove that homosexuality is not, in fact, a mental disorder, would you change your mind?

And before you answer my question with another question, yes, I would. Current evidence appears to go against homosexuality being a mental disorder, however, and so I tend to accept it, if provisionally. Perhaps the evidence is not absolutely, totally conclusive (at least not as much as you require it to be), but so far it is good enough for me, as I am not trying to prove the opposite. Should reliable scientific evidence surface to the contrary, I would revise my position on the subject.

I also seem to remember you saying something to the effect of people who disagree with you "never having considered the possibility that homosexuality may be wrong".

I ask you: have you ever, even remotely, considered the possibility that homosexuality may *not* be intrinsically wrong? That it may not be a mental disorder or sexual deviation, but rather simply a personality trait shared by a minority of people? That it may not actually need to be "cured" as such?

"As marriage is not needed for couples who don't need children, it's not needed for homosexuals. While couples who don't have children may at any point change their mind, homosexuals can't impregnate one another."

Yes, this has, in fact been discussed before. Still, you´re the one who brought it up. By your argument, marriage is unnecessary for people who can´t, won´t or don´t need to have children, men who have had a vasectomy, women who´ve had a tubal, infertile people, people who have been rendered incapable of having children by accident and the elderly who can no longer produce children, shouldn´t be married.

"Why except? That's one point. How else? By presenting a normal, parents & children family as equal to a formalised union of two men or two women with deviated sexual drive. With all respect, of course."

Chevalier, how can you possibly claim to respect someone while calling them deviants at the same time?

Perhaps you have a different definition of "respect" than I do.

Now, it seems to me, judging from that last statement, that you have firm opinion of what a "normal" marriage is, and that you also firmly believe that a formalised union of two consenting adults of the same gender cannot possibly be regarded as equal to a traditional marriage. That such a thing would be harmful to society. However, you fail to take into account that the nuclear family of parents and children that is traditionally accepted in the western world is by no means the only type of family in the world.

For instance:

http://iupjournals.org/nwsa/nws12-1.html

(I hope posting the link to it does not amount to using the article without permission. I am not actually reproducing it, after all).

A quote:

"The practice of women marrying women is somewhat common in certain societies in West Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa, and the Sudan (O'Brien 1977). Yet, besides a total lack of discussion in the popular media, what is typically called woman-woman marriage is the subject of a very small body of academic literature".

From my point of view, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this kind of marriage. It is the product of a different culture, of a different way of looking at the world, and most importantly, it apparently *works*.

I can, however, infer, if I may be so bold, judging by your earlier posts, that you´re likely to have a problem with it. That, since it deviates from the traditional western norm, you´re likely to regard it as "abnormal", rather than simply "different". Do you think, perhaps, that traditional western marriage should be enforced on this people, even if their arrangement apparently works for them?

Of course you could argue that, as I have said, this kind of marriage is the product of a different culture. However, western culture is not static, either. If it was, black and white people would still be seggregated. You may also argue that acceptance of homosexuality marriage may eventually lead to the acceptance of other "deviations", like the so often cited paedophilia. However, for me to accept that argument, I would first have to accept that homosexuality is, in fact, a sexual deviation comparable to paedophilia, and that, like paedophilia, it is intrinsically harmful to society. I have not, however, been presented with any tangible evidence of this (whereas there *is* evidence that paedophilia is harmful to society) and until such a time as I am, I will not accept that position.

Was there anything else? Ah, yes. Your statement, in reply to a comment on how a union between two consenting adults of the same sex does not hurt anybody else. You replied, as I remember, something to the effect of "neither does adultery". Begging your pardon, I disagree with your statement. Adultery implies a breach of trust, a betrayal of one of the partners to the other. Odds are, somebody will be hurt by it. I do not believe that this is the case with the consensual union of two homosexual partners, and I fail to understand how it may be comparable to adultery.

Right. Well, I don´t want to go on for any longer than I have to. I consider that I have done so already, and as I said before, I hate arguing. I merely wanted to express my views on this issue, and on your statements specifically. I am fairly certain that nothing I say will sway your opinion, but frankly, I don´t care.

I probably won´t return to this thread. I do not wish to embroil myself in pointless arguments any furter.

 

He is right chevalier, this argument is pointless, and I suggest you leave all to their own devices, you are wasting your breath I fear.

For the record, chevalier's logic was true. Jschild, you did not specify that either *All* gays are murderers, nor that *All* christians love all gays. Thus, they are not blanket stements. A simple mistake, I know, but chevaliers assessment of it based upon what you had explicitly stated was corrct.

As to rest of this argument, I backed out of it a long time ago, as no progress was served. Everyone is able to use their own discernment to see how words have been put into mouths, and taken out of them. How meanings have been misconstrued and ignored, and the hypocrisy and irrationality, the lack of logic, upon which those have based their arguments against the likes of chevalier.

It does not take much to be aware of what you are actually saying, chevalier, and that you at no time said anything disriminatory against anyone, let alone that you felt any sort of hate or resent. Rest assured that those who do not choose to make such assumptions have no doubts upon your character.

Stubborness is human nature. Irrespective of your arguments, one will not accept what they do not want to. You have stated enough in simple terms what it is you were saying, if people refuse to understand, or choose to apply different criteria uopn it, there is nothing that can be done.

It is a different way of seeing the world, one with a perception tied to certain things shall not see it any other way. This can be said about anyone.

I only say this to avoid frustration. Because little results are gained through hitting your head against a wall. Except a headahce, which I am sure you must now have. Such things come from repeating yourself so often.

But discrepancies of structure of argument put aside, there exists here a bridge of philosophy which cannot be breached. I am sure in all sincerity that those who have taken up opposition to the point of view presented are as unaware of this difference, or the changes of perception it illicits, as they are of the fallacies in their own opposition, opposition being the case, as the burden has consistently been placed those who are in fact, arguing for the balance to be maintained, if not improved.

The others, who I have spoken against in the beggining of this thread, may also rest assured that it is understood why you feel the way you do. It is only disagreed upon by the life we ourselves have had. No-on wishes for any sort of exclusion or discrimination to occur here, it is simply not seen as such a thing from the point of view that has been reached through the experiences we have had. If we are at fault for our own philsophy, so be it, if we are at fault for recognizing the way in which every action has it's consequences, or that we as one are responsible for, if not obligated towards, each other as a people, or that we as one all revel in each other's achievements -and pay for our brother's mistakes- so be that as well. We could not allow ourselves to feel otherwise, as I am sure you would have difficulty discarding the beliefs that you yourself hold.

'Why?' 'Because we want to' If you say so friends, it is accpeted, if not agreed upon. But you may perhaps one day understand why there is such objection to that statement. Until then, concern yourselves only with this; As much as you do not wish to be affected, or to have anyone else affected -by yearn of your compassion, and this I welcome and will commend- in some way undesireable and due to the decisions of another, we only feel the same way. If that cannot be understodd, if it cannot be grasped why we would think such a thing, try to understand that all we ask is for you to accept that it is so. I think I may speak for all here when I say I do not want to control your lives, we only wish to describe to you what it is that we ourselves have come to believe, to say why only so as to defend what it is we think is right, or we think is true. If we did not think such a thing, the belief would not exist.

I am perhaps over-reacting with this statement, but again, there is nowhere else to go with this. What has been said has been said. Perhaps more could be, but for what reason? what has allready been said has lent no distance, we are at standstill, regardless of any justification, of which very little of my own has been provided, it shall not be accepted if it falls contradictory to another's understanding of the basic principles upon which such justification lies.

So I suggest to all, cease this now as it serves no purpose any longer.

 

If someone says Gays are murderers, it is implicit that all gays are murderers because that is the only way that sentence can be construed as true. Because if only some gays are murderers, the the statement, gays are murderers is false, while if they all are, then the statement is true. All of Chev's so called logic arguements use the same flawed logic. The same goes for the first statement, if all Christians do not love gays, then the statement christians love gays is false. If all of them do, only then can the statement be true.

 

I was aware that it was a petty mousetrap and so I decided to stomp on it. The "all" part, even if implied, was not there. I am not liable for what was implied no more than I am accountable for someone's statements.

The statements were not accute and therefore lacking any logical value without a little bit of interpretation, therefore not even sentences in logical sense. There were two ways: some or all.

If I were going by Benevolent Logic, I would have interpreted the obvious flaw in favour of the Author. However, I were not.

It was a mousetrap fallacy and for that reason I didn't go by Benevolent Logic. As an angel of logical death, I came down with sword and fire to punish the wicked, dressed in Angelic Fullplate +25 and wielding a Vorpal Celestial Broadsword of Ugly Cuts +50. AoDA is not a Sorority meeting, AoDA is a field of battle.

Therefore, I interpreted it as "some" and thus proved that the inference could be valid, despite the mousetrap creator's efforts. Despite his desire of having the "all" part accepted by allegation. A la guerre comme a la guerre. If you pick a fight with chevvy, you're asking for it. Sorry, watch your defences next time.

Thank you.

I understand them. It's hard to change my opinion by debate alone and as well as they are, I'm also defending a position that I consider right, partly for arbitrary reasons, and the other side won't concede, the other side also providing arguments that only sound nice but aren't agreeable. I understand that. I'm not a Don Quixote and I'm not saving the world in this debate. In fact I seriously doubt anyone changed his mind as a result of my arguments. I'm argueing for the sake of principles, cynically as it may seem.

Headache was half a day ago. At present, my labyrinth is dancing.

Sorry, friend. It only means your statements needed a special interpretation to be assigned any logical value at all, let alone be acknowledged as true. It's your part to speak your mind, not mine. Especially if you're setting a trap. Especially if you're trying to catch chevvy in such an obvious kindergarten level mousetrap.

It seems you have learnt to start saying "all" when you mean it. You can learn more about generalisations here

The statement "Christians love gays" is not accute. It doesn't necessarily mean "all Christians". It is not regardless of the context. Without a special context, it means "There exist Christians who love gays". Find one Christian who does and the statement is true. If you stick firmly to plural, find two. John loves gays and is Christian, Mandy loves gays and is Christian. John and Mandy are Christians and love gays. Christians love gays. Heck, even this one: Jack and Bertie are gays and Christian and love each other is sufficient to stomp your mousetrap.

Hint: for fat mice you need bigger mousetraps.

And now Hermit09. First of all, big kudos to you for not calling me names and not insulting my intelligence or character. I officially owe you a beer.

They know more than most of us, myself included. They are, however, not impartial and their activity is not limited to objective analysis. In short, they're biased towards the gay option.

For various reasons I've grasped more in this field than your average Joe, but I'm still not an expert, granted. Psychology and sociology is more like it, not like I have any achievement there. If those people, using their knowledge and doing their job right instead of promoting gay rights, give enough proof, I will have to acknowledge it. Surely I'm not going to help it with faith, though. Inductional proof isn't enough. Being yellow with black stripes doesn't make you a tiger.

That my arguments continue to be challenged proves nothing except for that they are challenged. The same applies to arguments which I challenge.

Contrary opinions are not totally unfounded and they may have some merit. They deserve to be heard and weighed and treated with respect especially if they come from people personally involved. In democracy, each contrary opinion is as important as mine. Still doesn't mean that I have to go by someone's opinion. No more than that someone has to go by mine.

Of course. I judge. I don't judge people, I judge actions. Especially actions in abstract, as concepts. But I still judge. Of course. Like everyone having some morals. I never make contrary claims.

Yes. Of course. I stick firmly to the disorder part. To the mental part less firmly I'm just not going to take someone's word on that it's normal. The same way people won't take my word on that it isn't normal. I'm not even going to talk much with people who are only in for sex and believe that every hole is good, or people who don't mind sleeping with same sex friends, but I feel compassion for people who love or think they love a member of the same sex "that way".

You have no idea.

I've heard of people cured. They may still 1) Only think they've been cured 2) Only have thought they were homosexuals. There's always such a possibility, in so far as homosexuality isn't caused by environment or psychological things (such as constant rejection by opposite sex, lack of working relationships etc). If homosexual orientation in an individual isn't chosen, it may well be uncurable. Uncurable doesn't mean healthy.

I don't go that far. I claim that homosexual marriage doesn't fit here. Isn't in the region. Contrary to perfectly valid marriages between infertile people of opposite sex (they're voidable if one party is infertile and the other hadn't been informed beforehand, in case someone would like to nitpick).

Show me where I called them else than "gay" or "homosexual"? But I could respect them even if I did. I could respect a paedophile or zoophile calling him a deviant. Or a murderer, calling him murderer. Before anyone makes such a claim ex pio zelo, I'm not suggesting any analogy here

It's very probable. A good idea for a thread, BTW.

Yes.

Please, that I don't agree with something doesn't mean I don't take into account any arguments you could possibly bring up for it.

As a son of an orientalist who ended up contracts department manager in a major bank and a freelance artist, both with fascination in history and ancient civilisations, each having learnt several languages, I surely didn't have any remote contact with any culture other than my own in my family house. As having seven or eight ethnic mix-ins and having muslim ancestors of Asian race, I'm surely your average close-minded European. As a man raised by mother whose husband never got close to becoming my step-father, and having six half-blood siblings from both parents and no full-blood one, I surely have no grasp of anything other than nuclear family. As an honours student with special knack for anything remotely related with history, geography, culture or social things, a former classical scholar and now a law student, having been learning six foreign languages in my life, I surely haven't devoted even a single though to anything not fitting in my closed mental space of a stereotyping Catholic zealot full of xenophobic hate flowing from lack of understanding.

I'm not going to enforce anything on them.

Yes, of course. I was going by the no-direct-harm scheme from which total harmlessness of recognition of homosexual carnal activity as equal to marital activity was deduced. I had my time with zealous defenders of adultery too, for months in some other forum

[ January 18, 2004, 01:44: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

You are still missing the point, most of your logic arguements are based on unprovable assumptions or opionions and therefore cannot constitute sound logic. They are techinically valid but as I have said before, there is a difference. I was not setting a mousetrap, I simply put up a badly worded example which to make everyone happy I will correct now.

1. All Christians love all homosexuals.
2. All Homosexuals commit murders.
3. Therefore all Christians love all murderers.

This is Valid Logic.

All baseball pitchers throw baseballs at the catcher.
Jimmy is a baseball pitcher.
Jimmy throws the baseballs at the catcher.

This is Sound Logic. No mousetrap, just examples for clarification.

 

Again do I come in Angelic Fullplate +25, this time with a Celestial Maul of Crushing +75.

Look:

1. All Christians love all homosexuals.
2. All homosexuals commit murders.

Therefore, all Christians love some murderers. There's no valid claim as to all murderers. That all homosexuals commit murders doesn't mean that all murderers are necessarily homosexual. Therefore, it's not necessarily true that all Christians love all murderers.

Thus your example is not valid logic.

As for your accusation, please show me where I infer true conclusion from a false premise.

 

Not False premise, but opinions as assertions. As far as I am aware you have not lied on any post nor do I believe you have. But a premise based on opinions is not a correct premise.

 

This only means that you're not going to accept a premise with which you disagree as valid for further inference. That's your right. If it makes you feel better, treat the conclusion as inferred from opinions. Such as one that proper marriage is essential to nation's proper development and that proper development is essential for a nation.

However, technically, you still have to accept my conclusion as valid in order to claim I received truth from falsehood (0 value) to match your statement. Anyway, I believe we're done with that.

What we're not done with is that if we regarded many of my conclusions as based on opinions (and to some degree they are), the same can be said about the other side of our petty conflict. Sorry, but it's not a logical truth that "gay is OK" or that something is fair and equal or not. Or claims opposite to mine - if opposite, they're in dichotomy with mine. If mine don't have a logical value of 0 or 1, neither can the opposite ones, as the dichotomy would not be valid and they would no longer be opposite ones in such a case.

Another thing is that your above inference is valid so long as you admit to the total falsehood of premises and conclusions, without exceptions - but since we disagree with the position of our opposition as a rules, that's not quite needed - unless to prove they're from the moon. Or compulsive liars. Something that way.

Anyway, we've spent too much time on formal issues. I agree with what Manus said a few posts above about the pointlessness of this discussion and impossibility of a consensus. From a cynically distanced point of view, we're ready to defend our points ad infinitum which won't change your views and you're ready to defend yours unto death, which won't make us change our mind either. This, of course, is no concession on my part.

[ January 18, 2004, 13:39: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Very true on most all points except one. I, at least I do not believe I have, argued from a logic position but one of gut belief and experience. Which I believe is the same as you except perhaps remove gut belief and insert faith. I believe in situations in this (most social stuff) logic simply isn't powerful enough a tool to deal with it. So I personally go by what i know, what I've seen, and what I believe, which I think we can agree on is what we both do, just simply reach different conclusions because of our experiences and faiths. Without a doubt, ad infinitum indeed

 

If I'm not mistaken, in the Bible it says that marriage is the joining together of a man and a woman, for the purpose of procreation. Two men or two women can't procreate, therefore they are in direct contradiction of the Bible

 

The BOVD is wrong.

 

Where is the proof?! OK, I'll make it for you

1. Shura is right. Axiom.
2. The Bible contradicts Shura.
3. From 2, either Shura is right or the Bible is right.
4. From 1 and 3 either Shura is right or the Bible is right and Shura is right
5. From 4, if either Shura is right or the Bible is right and Shura is right, the Bible is wrong.

QED

Nice, isn't it?

Back to Jschild:

Just because I have faith, doesn't mean I don't have gut. I'm sure you have also noticed that I haven't brought up religious arguments in this thread and didn't enforce Christian dogmas on anyone, nor present Biblical truths as logical truths to non-believers. And my gut doesn't have to dictate the same as your gut

Therefore, we may safely form a conclusion that our experience is different and our guts differ and that we can't logically prove experience or gut. When it comes to what we see as truth independent from our belief, values and opinion about it, we're still not going to prove it succesfully, since the other side won't accept such a proof and will always have logical reasons not to accept it. At this point it's quite apparent that no constructive conclusion can be achieved here. Of course, this is a purely de facto description and has no bearing on what we really think the truth is In short: we've presented our views to each other, practiced several ugly tricks and gained nothing else for wasting our time ad almost infinitum

 

I didn't mean you havne't spoke from the gut, but I assumed that you have spoken more from your faith and belief than just gut feeling. We all act from what we feel, I simply assumed (and one should never assume, I know, I know) that you were responding more from your belief (which I know you can feel in your gut) and what you have learned from your faith (your reading of the bible, priests or preachers, etc.).

 

You see, we can all get along.

 

Make love not child... war!

Yes, we can. Even if it involves painful processes at the beginning. After all, a man must defend what he holds dear, which primarily means his principles and benefits. Cross your swords, then you may shake your hands as in the ancient duelling customs.

Yes, my gut has to be influenced by my faith. Conscience, for one, has a special place in Christian theology and well, doesn't gut rely largely on it? Sure. What I meant, was that I avoided using my faith as argument when argueing with people holding different beliefs. What do they care what the Bible says if they're atheists, for example? Well, some do, but that's not the point here. We can't say "the Bible says so" to a non-believer, we have to make our brains work and earn our lunch. I can assure you I understand the oppositive position and have contemplated oppositive points. I can fancy the thought without assenting to it. As for books, priests, preachers - they're humans in so much as I am, with all same limitations following. Sure, they're experts that I'm not, but that doesn't mean I follow without thinking. As for the Bible, the Bible may be a dogma, but the rendition of a certain Hebrew, Aramaean or Greek word isn't. After all, we've had long centuries of Moses portrayed with horns (which horn should have been ray ). That's why extreme caution is needed not to overdo, but still not to "underdo" either.

 

I think that's an intersting take. Before anything else comes into play, chosing the right words is key.

Changed the quote a little to focus on the thread-topic and not the actual topic of the source.

Here

 

This hasn't anything to do with whether gay marriage SHOULD be legal. What it does do is show WHO thinks gay marriage should be legal/illegal, in light of the State of the Union address in the US.

Numbers that stuck out to me are the gender gap involved (women are more likely to favor legalizing gay marriage 55% women, 41% men), there is a large age gap (55% of 18-29 year old favor legalization compared to 21% of 65+ year olds), and a huge gap based on religious belief (17% Evangelicals favor legalization, 42% of non-evangelicals, and 66% of "no religion" people).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

In light of the above, while those here may not believe that gay marriage should be illegal based on relgious reasons, even if they are devoutly religious, it appears that there may be a tie to religion for the public at large. I also wonder at the difference in the age and gender gap and wonder what this may be attributed to?

 

@ Iago – the quote you gave points to some strange attitudes IMO. It seems to suggest that people think it’s OK to be gay, but not to have gay sex, and while you don’t necessarily have to have the latter in order to have the former, it seems to be a logical next step.

@ Laches – neither the age nor gender differences surprise me. I’m in between the two age brackets you mentioned, and I think it’s safe to say that, the older you are, the longer you have been living when homosexuality was not at all accepted by anyone, so attitudes of older people are more likely to reflect that. As far as gender differences go, in my experience, males are more likely to be homophobic than females, so it seems likely that males would generally be more opposed to gay marriage. Now as to the reason for the higher level of homophobia, that is a different issue (and one that I don’t really have an answer for).

 

I think its very interesting. And frankly, it reminds of own of my domestic parties. They play a similar game with issues. This, and that dman18 dubbed this topic "gay marriage", yet he's pro.

"Right to merry" would sound much more positive. And then I have to think about the Schwarzenegger quote:" gay marriage should be between a man and a woman". He made the connection to "traditional" marriage. But what, if he would have been asked, "are you for the right to merry for gay couples ?". Whould he have said, I am against that right, because I think that right only belongs to heterosexuals. Or how would he have brought that about marriage, without being questioned about it again, yeah fine that with marriage, but are you for or against granting that right to homesexuals too?

And "marriage" has also this "religious" connotation, which "a right" has not. "Right" has a completly secular, legal connotation. Principally positive, like civil rights movement. Granting rights to people which had none before, withheld because of colour or gender. It was wrong to deny rights to them like it is wrong to to deny rights to gays. The logical deductions which are possible are highly dependend on the initial term that's used. Talking about "marriage" leads, I think, automaticly in the wrong way, talking about "rights" would lead things and thoughts in a more positive direction, I think. Everybody is free to do what he wants, as long it doesn't hurt nobody, who wouldn't agree more or less with that ?

(Laicité is ofcourse a principle with very high priority, if questions come to mind)

 

I just don't see the sense in being opposed to gay marriage or gay rights in general. I do not KNOW that homosexuallity is genetic(though I suspect this MAY be, to some degree true) but I fail to see how this is of any relevance.

I come from a "mixed" family. The father who raised me, as well as all my siblings, is/are black. I can still remember the arguments against interracial marriage/dating that were prolific even as late as the 1970's and I cannot help but notice that the arguments against interracial coupling and gay marriage are nearly identical!


Blacks and whites dating : Hurts no one but for offending people who are prejudice. Is/was argued against by false premises("Blacks are more likely to commit crime/be immoral/leave their wives/ etc.!"). Actively supporting a ban on interracial dating/marriage only serves to appease the racist and serves no other benefit to society.

Gay marriage: Hurts no one but for offending people who are prejudiced(whether this prejudice is justified by religious conviction, general ignorance or what have you is unimportant). Is argued for according to false premises("Homosexuality = pedophilia/sexual predation/ etc.). Actively supporting a ban on gay marriage only serves to appease someone of a particular prejudicial mindset and serves no other tangible benefit to society.


I wish to avoid the argument between Chev' and others except to address one point of Chev's:

The burden of proof thing...again, we do not make a law prohibiting murder because no one has proven that murder is NOT harmful or an infringement upon another's right to live. We make such prohibitions as they are proven (beyond REASONABLE doubt) to be direct violation of another's right to exist without being tangibly harmed.
It is therefore upon the anti-gay marriage types to prove that Bob and Chuck enjoying the same civil liberties as Steve and Susan(in regards to hospital visitation, tax breaks etc.) will directly harm Chev' and his loved ones beyond offending his religious sensibilities.

I think what is more interesting than the environmental factors that MAY go into being gay are the environmental factors that go into being homophobic/racist/etc.
My mom was/is a professional hairstylist and WAS a pro. dog show handler. Neddless to say I grew up around a LOT of gay people. Gay people babysat me, took me to movies. cooked for me, etc..

Not a single one ever abused me or violated me in any way...EVER! Consequently, I grew up with a pretty rational perspective on the issues of minority rights. I have noticed that most who argue against minority rights(be it the atheist minority, gay minority, blacks, latinos etc.) seem to have little socialization with such people.