you completely made this up or borrowed it from some anti SSM gibberish. It has no basis in reality.
No, they don’t; such an argument is ridiculous to the point of parody.
Meaningless. All of those have non-bigoted reasons to make them illegal. Opposition to SSM is purely a matter of bigotry.
Garbage that I already answered.
How are they different. If love and sexual attraction are the only requirements for marriage then these poor souls are being discriminated against. Incest couples do not have the same rights as non-incest couples.
But they are very seldom consenting adults. And there are also genetic issues with children, and the moral issues involved with telling them not to have children. All of which are reasonable arguments for making it illegal. The opposition to SSM lacks any such reasonable arguments.
No, it is normal in the same sense that webbed fingers or spina bifida exist as a percentage of the population. We fix those physical abnormalities. This is different in that it affects behavior. there are many behavioral abnormalities that we endeavor to correct as a society. But the criteria for this has been limited to behavior that bring direct harm to individuals or other members of society. While a case can be made that certain practices are harmful within the gay community the behavior itself is not deemed harmful. That does not make it normal, it just means it’s not harmful.
The legal ramifications of this is that for the most part, laws regarding homosexual activity have been set aside. As such, public support for privacy is high. But what motivates people to vote to retain the definition of marriage is the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship.
This is nonsense. They don’t need to be married to have children. And NOW it’s about the children?!? What if they were sterile?
Ah. And your evidence that homosexuality is a defect? And even if it IS a defect, we let people with genetic defects marry.
So, in other words it was just fine for people to oppose interracial marriage. That too was “normal” at one time.
Incestuous sex is, however a requirement ( barring technological intervention ), and that is illegal.
Yes, because NOW the children in question are at risk of genetic defects. And because in the case of opposing SSM, children are only harmed, not helped.
It is on topic. Look to what he was replying to. Society does make restrictions on marriage. It’s a fact, albeit an uncomfortable one for you.
Beg the question much? The discussion is about the motivations of those of us who oppose SSM. Bigotry is but one possibility. You don’t get to frame the debate with the conclusion you’re trying to support. Sorry, chum.
I think that a bit odd, but can you see that some people might see the man/woman coupling more aligned with the natural order in the world? I understand that you and others might feel that that is now irrelevant, for the reasons you gave, but that sidesteps my question.
Analogies needn’t be, and usually aren’t, exact duplications of what they are trying to shed light on. The point was/is that things can be very,very similar and still be worthy of separate classification. Man and woman are every bit as similar as SSM is to OSM, yet we still use “man” and “woman”. We even use “man” when referring to people of both genders at times, but we’ve not done away with “woman”. And that is helpful when we want a word describing the gender with the breasts and the shoe fetish. By allowing gays to “marry” you not only dilute the word, you strip the language of a descriptor for the very institution that has been so fundamental to society for centuries and, specifically, this very country.
Here’s a question I have for those who favor SSM and bring up the fact that not all married couples have or raise children: IF marriage had been restricted by law to only those people who would have an raise children, would you be okay with a civil union instead of “marriage”?
Oh, bull-pucky - I am sick and tired of this argument.
By extension, cancer is the natural order of things. Should we stop treating cancer patients and searching for a cure, because this flies in the face of the natural order?
Living in cave, dressed in a loincloth and catching your food with a pointed stick is the natural order of things. Should we all ditch our comfy domiciles, with our central air and refrigerated food?
News flash - that was the natural order of things. Species evolve - and part of this evolution from an anthropological standpoint is that the old ways give way to the new, in response to shifting cultural, intellectual, and environmental factors. And IMO, part of this evolutionary process is recognizing that love can come in more forms than the predominant religious community is willing to accept.
So we search for cancer cures, build comfortable homes and drive shiny cars, and hopefully learn to tolerate that with which we aren’t comfortable.
And all this equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy? It smacks of the same arguments that folks used against legalizing integration and interracial marriage 40 years ago. Every time I hear that argument, in my mind’s eye I see George Wallace and Orval Faubus - it really does your argument no good whatsoever.
But then again, I doubt the good ol’ boys down South cared about such things back then either - not as long as they had the scared white Christian vote. Now we’re just replacing “scared” with “straight” - you all must be proud of yourselves.
No. Marriage between two legally consenting adults should be a fundamental right. Someone’s idea of the religious definition of marriage should have no bearing.
No, then you’d be marginalizing an even greater segment of the population.
There’s nothing special about couples that have or plan to bear children that make them better than other couples.
Oops, I meant to say ‘now we’re just replacing “white” with “straight”. . .’ I botched my punchline.
You’re comparing a physical defect to a physically driven behavioral abnormality.
No, the fact that a law that was struck down existed is not an argument that it was a good law.
Not uncomfortable for me. I’m not the one embracing irrational stupidity to validate my personal prejudices.
Why is incest a separate issue? Because the homosexuals who want to get married aren’t related maybe?
Opposing SSM is bigotry silly. I don’t care how you try to sell it to yourself, chum. 
Der Trihs was not arguing that it was a good law. He’s saying that your argument against SSM based on “normalcy” is flawed, because that same argument could have also been used to defend keeping interracial marriage illegal in the past.
Bad laws have always made their way onto the books. That is not an argument.
The op asked what motivates people to keep the definition of marriage as it stands. The answer is that the word has meaning and the vast majority of people do not want to change that meaning.
Certainly - if that’s the way they choose to excuse their bigotry. But it is still bigotry, just like the people who said separation between the races was the natural order were just excusing bigotry.
Garbage. Again; if there is any “dilution” of the word going on, it’s by people who oppose SSM, and by doing so smear the institution of marriage with bigotry. And your claim that the word would lose it’s meaning is ridiculous.
No. I’d just be demanding the right to childless couples to marry.
Like being left handed? Guess we’d better keep them from getting married too! :rolleyes:
And allowing SSM won’t change the meaning at all; that’s a ridiculous claim. Everyone will still know what “Bill and Jane are married” means.
And all these empty, silly reasons being given for opposing SSM really underline the truth of my claim that the real reason is always bigotry. Opponents can’t come up with good arguments, because there are none. And they can’t ( at least on a board like this ) come right out and admit that it’s because they or their god hates homosexuals without being rhetorically torn apart. So all they can do is throw out one ridiculous rationalization after another, because their real reasons won’t fly.