SSM proponents need to stop using love as an argument for their case.

[Odesio]

@aruvqan

I went through hell with an abusive man who loved me. I would settle for friendship, respect and no love from someone who didn’t torment me and was a satisfactory lover and decent provider.

[I ended up with a man who does share love with me, so I got lucky.]

I don’t see how you could be in a relationship with a man who respected you, was your friend and was a satisfactory lover without you being in love with him. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. How is it you’re defining love?

Also, nobody said love was all you needed for a marriage. Just that people who get married should be in love.

[aruvqan]

@Odesio

I don’t see how you could be in a relationship with a man who respected you, was your friend and was a satisfactory lover without you being in love with him. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. How is it you’re defining love?
.

Emotional attachments are personally subjective, and there are a number of forms of love - eros, agape, philia and storge. I would be happy with just philios in a marriage if the marriage was a marriage of equals. I do not equate sex with anything holy or special, it is a biological function [having been raped twice, and been in an abusive relationship I can disassociate my crotch from any sort of ‘my body is a holy temple’ type crap and treat it as a body part like my foot or my left shoulder.] and sex is something that can be fun or endured depending on the person I am with. With my abuser, it was to be endured until I could scrounge up enough money to be able to get myself and certain personal belongings away. With mrAru it is fun. YMMV.

[Hari_Seldon]

@Kaio

I disagree. Old School Republicans don’t think of SSM as equality. There’s a reason they call it “special rights.”

If you don’t bring love into it, then OSRs just retreat to the argument that gays are perfectly free to marry partners of the opposite sex. See? We’re all equal under the law.

I honestly haven’t known any Libertarians who were anti-gay. They were pretty hands-off on social issues.

That was the same argument in favor of the anti-miscegenation statues. Whites were just as restricted as blacks. In fact, one of the “justices” (Alito, I believe) argued that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, pretty soon gays would want to marry each other.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge

There are plenty of straight marriages that are marriages of convenience for one reason or another. It’s no ones business why two people get married.

I do agree with this, but it’s the right – or, at least, the legal ability – to marry the person you love that’s at stake here. Anyone can marry someone they don’t love in all 50 states.

[Katie_Mae]

So yer sayin’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGoLq3c4SDc

[Dangerosa]

@amarinth

Article about last year’s successful campaigns

As it turns out, “love” is a much better sell than “rights” or “equality” or “fairness” for the audience that can be reached.

Yeah, anyone making the argument of the OP needs to read that. The argument that its about love is being made BECAUSE that is the argument that works. And at this point you aren’t trying to win over older religious conservatives - you are making hay with the fence sitters - its so close that you really need to move a few people. And those people are moved on emotional appeal, not the rights argument.

[Ace309]

@Hari_Seldon

In fact, one of the “justices” (Alito, I believe) argued that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, pretty soon gays would want to marry each other.

As written, this looks like you think Sam Alito was on the court for the anti-miscegenation decisions.