Since 2003. That was when Lawrence versus Texas struck down sodomy laws. The "tolerance" of our nation is a decade old.Our government does not prohibit private unions of same sex couples, we are a tolerant nation, so acceptance in many situations has been accomplished. But to press this, forcing society to fundamentally change into something that brings with it no particular benefit, thus no compelling state interest, for the benefit of less than 4% of the population, a population that is not replacing itself but must rely, and actually draw upon the others, seems more of a burden, most certainly does not promote the general welfare. With no definitive proof as to whether sexual orientation is due to nature or to nurture or any combination of the two, and as it could very well be heavily influenced through nurture, the state interest being survival and maintaining its vitality, why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?
You argue that the whole "nature v. nurture" debate has not been settled while arguing that gays recruit people to homosexuality. That is intellectually dishonest. You made up your mind, and the science has shown pretty strong evidence that homosexuality is based on combination of factors, biology being a large part of it.
Same sex marriage does serve a state interest. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are raised by gay parents. They deserve the same benefits of marriage as children being raised by opposite sex parents get to enjoy. The fact that you ignore this is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.Answer: there is no compelling interest in so doing and many reasons not to do so.
Promote? Are you kidding? So when gays practice promiscuous sex outside of committed relationships then that is acceptable? But we would not want to promote that they practice committed, monogamous relationships the way we do for heterosexuals...with marriage? Social conservatism is a walking contradiction.B. You do not base policy on the exception, you base it on the rule [the majority]. Only opposite sex couplings, egg and sperm, produce offspring. While there are the few same sex parented families, in comparison to the whole, indeed out there, we must base policies on the majority. We allow this rarity in society, yet we have no reason to promote nor encourage this type of family unit. Demanding more, demanding equal status when such couplings are not the same, are not inherently equal and do not perform anywhere near the optimal for long term health of a society... that becomes a selfish need at the expense of the whole.
Society will always have that conversation and it will be based on what is best for society, not the interest of the few. I am confident that same sex marriage will prove to be best for society as a whole. Whether or not it can be extended beyond same sex marriage is a different debate and one we will have as a society regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is made legal. Trying to conflate the issue by turning to an appeal to consequences fallacy is not very convincing nor rational.C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage to show what works, what does not. We have no studies of existing same sex cultures as none have survived. It is difficult to see how one, could, in fact, survive very long. But tell me, since you do not attempt to even address the major question, upon what legal basis will we deny anybody from marrying anybody or anything? After we fundamentally change society? And do you deny that allowing everybody to do whatever they want will only lead to chaos? Whether you do or not, it would... and most people given a proper understanding that our laws will not allow you to just open the door a crack, to allow just what "you" want to come in, once open you let it ALL in.
Apply that same reasoning to the argument you made above.As you know, regarding divorce same sex states blah blah, correlation is not equivalent to causation. Could be all myriad reasons for that stat, probably not underrepresented is that many people might be giving up on marriage as a whole, it being seen to be of less and less worth with dilution and ease of divorce.
Innovation and reason trump tradition. We have no progressed as a society by always doing things the same way simply because they appeared to work well in the past. We question our assumptions and challenge ourselves to look for better ways. Your appeal to tradition fallacy and slippery slope fallacy are as stale as always. For somebody who promised me an "educated" debate you rely quite a bit on logical fallacies and a lack of evidence.D. Again, you have nothing to trump tradition, experimental societies come and go, seldom even noticed, often unheard of and forgotten to history. We have a proven system. Often smart/best to go home with the one that brought you to the dance. Again, you go with the rarities [Slavery], the exception upon which to base policy? We have the incubators of democracy with states, take it as far as you can go in the states, let the people there decide, then watch, see what happens... but to force everyone, whether they/we like it, believe in it, or not, that we must do as the minority says, would that not be rather totalitarian and a tyranny of the minority?
2. All life is hectic, where ones sees stability is where there is civilization, civilizations are built upon the family as the most basic unit, families are created by opposite sex couplings...where do you see same sex unions civilizations... or even sex sex communities that have survived any length of time at all? With, like as in opposite sex families, an uninterrupted history from as far back in recorded history as we can go?
You cannot, never wondered why, I am guessing.
3. You could not argue that in any event. I am also arguing that this is a great risk as we have nothing upon which to base a successful outcome of the implementation of such a foreign policy into the social make up of this country that the whole world depends upon to remain strong. That should help you as a hint to figuring out number 1 above, though.
4. Don't believe me? Look it up. Maybe you will prove me wrong on this one point at least. You won't, but...
5. Nice fake to the left there...how about answering the question instead of calling people names, like that is a real answer... the question again: upon what legal basis would you stop anybody/anything from getting married? We have the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, once you start giving certain groups special privileges, what will be the basis to deny any other groups... the liberal "D" word, discrimination will be tossed everywhere... how will you counter that... let's say I want to marry my adult sister... what is your basis of denial in the law?
6. Well lets all hear that mountain sing, don't keep it to yourself man, I am sure it is utterly fascinating fiction, yet persuasive, right...?