Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

[yolland]

could you name for me 10 qualities a father has that no mother will ever have, and 10 qualities a mother will have that no father will ever have.

1) He's not your mother.
..................?

1) She's not your father.
.................?

It's simple. Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and vice versa, that a father brings unique contributions that no mother can?

It's simple because you've avoided naming specifics, so whatever appeal the answer has rests on a tautology.

I'd expect that in the aggregate there might be some trends distinguishing adult children of (intact) opposite-sex families from adult children of (intact) same-sex families in terms of, for example, certain social and cultural sensibilities, just as I'd expect to see in, for example, similar comparisons across ethnic and religious lines. In a thread several years back we discussed the specific scenario of same-sex parents raising a child of the opposite sex, and someone, I think Sean, drew an analogy to the scenario of two white parents raising a black child--that in both cases there'd probably be occasions where it'd be very helpful to have established extrafamilial adult mentor figures the child could call on (actually, this is frankly a good idea for any child), but that that's hardly a concern which rises to the level of rendering them unfit parents. I agree with that. But "men are men and women are women" doesn't cut it for me as a meaningful argument against same-sex parenting, especially when no attempt is being made to unpack it.

Again, you can agree with that premise but judge equality and fairness a greater consideration and thus support same-sex marriage.

I've never encountered a supporter of same-sex marriage who considered it an inferior family environment for children. It's true the legal arguments do emphasize equality and fairness, because after all we don't require straight couples to intend parenthood in order to marry, and not denying access to a public good on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic (sex, when procreation isn't required) happens to be a strong legal case. But your wording makes it sound as if SSM supporters just shrug off children's welfare once equality and fairness have been invoked, which simply isn't true. I've never encountered an SSM supporter who didn't also support same-sex adoption, either.

 

[anitram]

1) I was trying to see if we could agree on the premise that limitations on marriage have always existed and arose for reasons other than "hate" or some phobia.

Reasons such as ignorance? Hanging on to antiquated notions of women being chattels, for example?

Can a similar argument be made that you may not be homophobic but you may be ignorant of what life is like for a committed gay couple or their children and you hang on to that ignorance and use it as your basis for reasoning?

I had an interesting conversation with a gay friend of mine who actually lived in the southern US for many years (Texas, to be specific). Otherwise he spent the rest of his life in Canada or Europe. And he said to me that what he found to be extremely surprising, though maybe it shouldn't have been, that in Texas he was very often the first and only (openly) gay man that his co-workers, neighbours, etc came across. That they weren't necessarily avoiding the gay community but they simply lived in places where most people, for good reason, would not come out and would probably flee in early adulthood to avoid dealing with the judgment, the stigma and so on. While some of them were openly nasty to him, many others actually warmed up to him enough to consider him a friend over the years, once they realized and accepted that he's essentially like them - a hard-working guy who pays his bills, doesn't wear assless leather pants to work and so on. So his theory is that most of them are not actually homophobic but are very ignorant, mostly as a result of their circumstances, because they don't have life-long friendships with gays and lesbians, they don't know any gay people who are productive, high-earning members of society and living in committed relationships, they don't invite gays or lesbians to their homes nor do they go to theirs for summer barbecues and so on. They simply have no understanding of how deep and how hurtful their ignorance is because they are not faced in day-to-day life with their fellow gay citizens and to them this argument about marriage and female and male bits is an easy and theoretical one.

Makes me wonder to what extent INDY falls into that category.

 

[yolland]

^ INDY's from a college town, one where total lack of social exposure would be highly unlikely. Granted, knowing some gay people is different from having had several close gay friends and I have no idea whether that pertains or not, but I'd be very surprised if total social isolation was an issue.

 

[nathan1977]

Reasons such as ignorance? ... Makes me wonder to what extent INDY falls into that category.

See, once we get into this kind of name-calling rhetoric we've lost the ability for meaningful discussion. Say what you like about INDY's posts, but ignorant isn't a label you can hang him with, as yolland pointed out. (Other posters, perhaps.) His posts tend to be generally well-reasoned, even if he's coming from a completely different worldview than the majority of the posters here in FYM.

Worldview is an important issue to consider. There are a host of differences between men and women -- biological, sociological, chemical, physical, etc -- that have manifested themselves in different ways over the years when it comes to parenting styles. Those who believe in gender essentialism when it comes to parenting stand by these factors. These factors are generally, however, disregarded by those who believe that they are not in and of themselves essential for marriage and/or parenting, and certainly not for maintaining a cultural standard that accepts one over the other and applies it as a rule for all.

Thus, the arguments to support or oppose same-sex marriage based on gender differences wind up being circular. ("Differences matter!" "They're not real!" "Yes they are!" "No they're not! And even if they are, they don't matter!" "Yes they do!") The gender argument is a circular, closed argument on both sides, without much room for real debate or discussion between. I find the argument about "equal representation under the law" to be far more compelling and relevant.

 

[Irvine511]

Worldview is an important issue to consider. There are a host of differences between men and women -- biological, sociological, chemical, physical, etc -- that have manifested themselves in different ways over the years when it comes to parenting styles. Those who believe in gender essentialism when it comes to parenting stand by these factors.

what are they? i'm genuinely curious.

These factors are generally, however, disregarded by those who believe that they are not in and of themselves essential for marriage and/or parenting, and certainly not for maintaining a cultural standard that accepts one over the other and applies it as a rule for all.

this is very coherently stated. well phrased. i'd only switch "privileges" over "accepts."

 

[nathan1977]

this is very coherently stated. well phrased. i'd only switch "privileges" over "accepts."

Don't disagree. I'm trying to be even-handed.

Laying out the history of gender expression in marriage is a slippery slope on this board; you wind up falling into the "it's not the 1950s" arguments that I find unhelpful. Suffice it to say, there's a reason why moms have been traditionally perceived as more nurturing and caring, while dads have been traditionally perceived as less engaged at an emotional level. The reasons why many (most?) mothers are more tied to their children (often as a result of what happens throughout pregnancy, biologically, chemically, physically, emotionally, spiritually) are well-documented, as well as the struggle that many fathers have to connect emotionally with their children due to a lack of that same "bonding experience." It's one example, but it points out the emotional/chemical/biological/physical differences that exist between mothers and fathers, and how it can play out in terms of raising children. Certainly there are some men who are more empathetic than some women, and some women who are more emotionally detached than some men, and usually there are biological/chemical reasons for that. (More testosterone than estrogen, etc.) But there is a bio/chem/etc standard that those exceptions are usually measured against, and those standards stem from somewhere. I'm not convinced ignorance is the factor. (Though it undoubtedly is for some opponents, as yolland and anitram's posts illustrated.)

However, again, I'm not sure that arguing for or against same sex marriage (at least in the US) based on gender differences is a particularly helpful hat-stand on which to hang the argument. It hamstrings same-sex marriage activists because I think it forces them to have to over-reach (evident gender differences don't matter), which only gives opponents ammunition for the "see? they're trying to redefine everything" rabble rousing. For supporters, again, I find the equal representation argument a far more compelling and convincing one.

 

[BVS]

See, once we get into this kind of name-calling rhetoric we've lost the ability for meaningful discussion. Say what you like about INDY's posts, but ignorant isn't a label you can hang him with. (Other posters, perhaps.) His posts tend to be generally well-reasoned, even if he's coming from a completely different worldview than the majority of the posters here in FYM.

And worldview is an important issue to consider. There are a host of differences between men and women -- biological, sociological, chemical, physical, etc -- that have manifested themselves in different ways over the years when it comes to parenting styles. Those who believe in gender essentialism when it comes to parenting stand by these factors. These factors are generally, however, disregarded by those who believe that they are not in and of themselves essential for marriage and/or parenting, and certainly not for maintaining a cultural standard that accepts one over the other and applies it as a rule for all.

Thus, the reasons to support or oppose same-sex marriage wind up being the reasons to support or oppose same-sex marriage. ("Differences matter!" "They're not real!" "Yes they are!" "No they're not! And even if they are, they don't matter!" "Yes they do!") It's a circular, closed argument on both sides, without much room for real debate or discussion between.

I disagree on almost all accounts. INDY has often resorted to name calling, especially on this subject, and I fail to find any real reasoning in his posts. In fact he often bails when asked to reason his claims. He's claimed it infringes on freedom of religion; no one has ever asked churches to perform ceremonies they don't believe in. He argues parenting but you and I know that is not reasoning for marriage. He argues repercussions but then never defines them. And then he just falls back on 'status quo'.
This is not adult logical reasoning, you and I both know it takes more than this.

To say there is no real room for discussion is a cop out. I think if you did some real soul searching you would admit this.

 

[anitram]

See, once we get into this kind of name-calling rhetoric we've lost the ability for meaningful discussion. Say what you like about INDY's posts, but ignorant isn't a label you can hang him with. (Other posters, perhaps.) His posts tend to be generally well-reasoned, even if he's coming from a completely different worldview than the majority of the posters here in FYM.

That's because you are using a different definition of ignorance than I am.

I am not saying ignorant = stupid at all. INDY is very articulate. I am saying ignorant in the sense that he may be living a completely different lifestyle than those of us who live in what he would consider is a version of San Francisco.

I'll give you a good example - I was born in eastern Europe before the fall of the wall. For the first 6 years of my life I had never seen a non-white person, except in American movies. When I came across the first one, he was an African boy and the first thing I asked him was whether I could touch his hair - to me it was super exciting and fun and I'd never seen anything like it. Only later, when I moved to North America and actually had black friends did I realize that it's a really offensive thing and that many of them would not have taken kindly to such a request. I didn't ask it because I meant offense or because I was an idiot, I was simply ignorant of cultural norms outside of my own experience.

And that's what I was trying to get across with my post.

 

[Irvine511]

i think INDY is trying to make debate, because there's markedly less debate on this topic than there was even back in 2005. and, heck, if you dig through the archives, stuff posted in here about gay people back in 2001, even, would never be tolerated. i know Melon was around back then and was kind of a lone gay soldier in that battle. but much like in the world around us, the tide has turned, dramatically.

i also think that a part of resistance has to do with the appeal of authority and tradition and the notion of the sacred that we know has an appeal for conservatives. things are they way they are, and people are who we are, and there's an order we must keep and a standard we must live up to.

i wish, however, INDY might understand the issue of SSM as not one of fairness or equality, but one of freedom.

my freedom *is* limited.

 

[nathan1977]

I'll give you a good example - I was born in eastern Europe before the fall of the wall. For the first 6 years of my life I had never seen a non-white person, except in American movies. When I came across the first one, he was an African boy and the first thing I asked him was whether I could touch his hair - to me it was super exciting and fun and I'd never seen anything like it. Only later, when I moved to North America and actually had black friends did I realize that it's a really offensive thing and that many of them would not have taken kindly to such a request. I didn't ask it because I meant offense or because I was an idiot, I was simply ignorant of cultural norms outside of my own experience.

And that's what I was trying to get across with my post.

Thanks for clarifying. I do think there's a difference between INDY's posts (which are, as you point out, articulate) and your average "God made 'em Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" soundbite.

 

[PhilsFan]

I do not like the attempt to frame this as freedom versus equality, for several reasons.

 

[anitram]

Thanks for clarifying. I do think there's a difference between INDY's posts (which are, as you point out, articulate) and your average "God made 'em Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve" soundbite.

He is. But that's kind of why I wish you hadn't snipped my post to make it seem like I was implying something I wasn't. There was in fact a pretty long paragraph in between where I went into great detail of how a dear friend of mine who is gay actually came to understand people who might hold views like INDY whom he would have branded a homophobe before once he realized that their worldview and their lifestyle and their community limited their experience with gays and lesbians.

I can for sure tell you that my own parents, who are pretty devoutly Catholic, have vastly different views on gay marriage today than they did 20 years ago. Why? Because their kids brought their gay friends and coworkers over and suddenly two people who are from a different generation had a much more personal understanding of the situation.

 

[nathan1977]

INDY has often resorted to name calling, especially on this subject, and I fail to find any real reasoning in his posts.

I haven't been privy to the name-calling (if so, that's disappointing, but not entirely unheard-of here in FYM, on both sides). As far as your inability to find any real reasoning in his posts, I wonder if, again, this is because of a basic difference in worldview. "I think what you say makes no sense, so anything you use to support what you say also makes no sense." I'm certainly guilty of that; I'm guessing most of us are.

To say there is no real room for discussion is a cop out. I think if you did some real soul searching you would admit this.

I think there is only real room for discussion if both people are willing to engage in the other's worldview with a reasonable amount of goodwill. If not, then we're at something of an impasse.

 

[nathan1977]

He is. But that's kind of why I wish you hadn't snipped my post to make it seem like I was implying something I wasn't.

I apologize for that. I do think there's a difference between willful and/or malicious ignorance, and innocent ignorance (which you were describing). I've watched you and INDY go back and forth enough times to assume that you meant the former, not the latter. My apologies.

 

[Irvine511]

I do not like the attempt to frame this as freedom versus equality, for several reasons.

how about, equality is freedom?

 

[nathan1977]

how about, equality is freedom?

Maybe we should figure out how to define these terms.

 

[Irvine511]

Maybe we should figure out how to define these terms.

until i have equal rights, i am not a fully free citizen.

does that work?

 

[nathan1977]

until i have equal rights, i am not a fully free citizen.

does that work?

I was thinking about PhilsFan's problem. Maybe you solved it for him.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

^ INDY's from a college town, one where total lack of social exposure would be highly unlikely. Granted, knowing some gay people is different from having had several close gay friends and I have no idea whether that pertains or not, but I'd be very surprised if total social isolation was an issue.

Yeah, the chances of people coming across someone who is gay are pretty big nowadays. You may not know they're gay for one reason or another, but either someone in your family is gay, or a co-worker is, or someone you go to school with is, or whatever.

The town I live in has about 30,000 people. I can count on more than one hand the number of gay people I personally know (a couple of them don't live here in town, they're from other nearby towns, but they visit quite often). And when we lived in Wyoming, my sister went to school with quite a few kids who were gay. And that was in a small town, and in a state that wasn't overly gay-friendly, no less.

That said, however, while exposure to those who are different from you certainly helps, it alone isn't enough to move past whatever notions you have about certain people. You may know them, but you don't really "know" them, if you get my drift.

As for the topic of arguments that help or hurt this sort of discussion, I'll get involved in any discussion related to this issue that comes up, but ultimately, we can talk about gender roles or religion or whatever all day, I don't care. The bottom line is, I support gay marriage because I think it just makes sense to do so. Two consenting adults are in love and want to be together and make it legal. Where's the problem? To deny them that for the simple fact that it's two men or two women doing it instead of a man and a woman doesn't make sense to me, it seems cruel to deny them their happiness simply because you don't approve for whatever reason-why should I care if you're against it? Who died and made you ruler over other people's lives? They're doing the exact same things straight couples get to do when they get married, so why we have to call it different things or why we think it's okay to stop them from participating in the same activities we do, I don't understand.

Denying people civil rights is wrong. Plain and simple. And I don't think you even have to know gay people personally to realize that.

 

[Irvine511]

some people think it's important to deny rights for the sake of the children and to make sure that men don't think it's ok to wear dresses to work.

in conclusion, i am for opposite marriage.

 

[BVS]

I haven't been privy to the name-calling (if so, that's disappointing, but not entirely unheard-of here in FYM, on both sides). As far as your inability to find any real reasoning in his posts, I wonder if, again, this is because of a basic difference in worldview. "I think what you say makes no sense, so anything you use to support what you say also makes no sense." I'm certainly guilty of that; I'm guessing most of us are.

I think there is only real room for discussion if both people are willing to engage in the other's worldview with a reasonable amount of goodwill. If not, then we're at something of an impasse.

I don't really think it comes down to worldview, there are rules to what defines logic and reasoning. I can't expand now, but I'll be back later to further extrapolate.

 

[nathan1977]

to make sure that men don't think it's ok to wear dresses to work.

I AM WEARING A DRESS TO WORK RIGHT NOW.

#facepalm

 

[PhilsFan]

I was thinking about PhilsFan's problem. Maybe you solved it for him.

My issue is mainly that the question implies that increasing equality decreases freedom. It's a rhetorical trick that has yet to be shown to have any merit here.

I don't think BVS is entirely accurate in his assessment of INDY's logic. I think INDY generally has somewhat sound logic on the surface, but doesn't explain what he means enough when questioned on it. I think that's the main issue: that without further explanation some of the statements he makes seem faulty or underdeveloped. I certainly would like to engage in more of a back-and-forth with him and others, like yourself, as opposed to the general trend of this forum, which is reacting to news pieces. The dialogues are much more interesting to me, and I think it would be for the benefit of all to have more back-and-forth.

And while we are on the subject of name-calling and productive discussions, I do think, BVS, that you have a tendency to get frustrated by the direction of conversations in a way that becomes a detriment to them. There are times on this forum, and in any political arena, where people become angry and may overreact, and that is fine. It has happened to all of us here, save for those amazing few like Yolland who are so calm and collected all of the time. But you seem to do so pretty consistently, to the point where it comes off as rather dismissive. Yes, a lot of the conversations are redundant, and yes, there are times when people make completely illogical remarks. But flying off the handle with curt remarks, displays of annoyance, or generalizing statements about how "this is just another example of this poster's problem" do nothing for moving things forward. While it may be therapeutic to do here and there, you seem to do so in almost any extended discussion or debate, which seems a little odd to me. Not every discussion warrants disgust or anger or the need to display how confused you are that another poster could even think something like that. I think you often bring up good points and have good rebuttals, but coat them in such disdain that people want to engage you in a battle of snide remarks as opposed to a legitimate discussion.

I'm being somewhat hypocritical, of course. There are times when I make those snide remarks, or make half-assed remarks because I'm in a rush and simply want to put something down, even if it doesn't add to the discussion. There are times when I show immaturity, just like others, because I'm young and that makes me somewhat arrogant (and I really need to stop logging on to the Interference app while drinking). So, I'm not in a situation here where I'm unwittingly casting stones from a glass house. But I do think there are times where your posting style is disruptive when you may not even intend for it to be, and I think hearing it from someone who generally agrees with your points in a lot of the discussions is much more helpful than hearing it from someone like FinanceGuy for the umpteenth time.

 

[anitram]

^ INDY's from a college town, one where total lack of social exposure would be highly unlikely. Granted, knowing some gay people is different from having had several close gay friends and I have no idea whether that pertains or not, but I'd be very surprised if total social isolation was an issue.

Gotcha. But I don't think you need "total social isolation" either - my parents lived in one of the most gay-friendly cities, a huge urban centre (Toronto) and certainly would have encountered gay people in their daily life. But that is quite something else from being close with them, inviting them into your home, celebrating their milestones with them and so on. I have no idea where on the spectrum INDY belongs, but I think that there is almost a "critical mass" that has to be achieved before you fully get it, you know what I mean?

 

[BVS]

His posts tend to be generally well-reasoned, even if he's coming from a completely different worldview than the majority of the posters here in FYM.

Worldview is an important issue to consider.

Worldview is important to consider when trying to understand that person's exposure or ability, but worldview is more about opinion not logic or reasoning.

I can't expect to have a productive debate or conversation about Christianity with someone who has grown up in a part of the world where Bible's are banned and all they've been taught is a distorted version of Christianity.

Now you can plug in any other religion, word, or idea in the above and it remains the same.

BUT if that person was exposed to actual Christians and had access to read and study the Bible then I can expect to have a productive conversation with them.

But worldview and/ or opinions do not play a role in this debate. This is a debate about law and equality. I think this is one of the reasons for the great divide in today's environment, we have far too many people that believe worldview and opinion is enough. You see it on all sides of the aisle and it's not only frustrating but it's dangerous.

As I said earlier there are certain "rules" to logic and reasoning. You and I may have different opinions when it comes to economy, but those opinions do not matter unless we discuss the reasoning and logic behind them. And those reasonings or logic are backed up by historical evidence, numbers, facts, etc. Now the interpretation of those facts and numbers may be different and affected by worldview, but that doesn't matter because we're not debating the opinions we are debating the interpretation of facts and numbers which have to follow a line of logic and reasoning.

I haven't seen any of these arguments that follow that line. They all seem to either stop at the opinion, or argue something else that distracts from the true debate.

If you could show me how you interpreted the facts to show why you think YOUR marriage is somehow affected if two women were to get married then I'd listen. But I haven't seen that.

If you could show me how YOUR freedom of religion is effected by two men getting married then I'd listen.

If you could show me reason or logic behind any ONE argument against gay marriange then I'd listen and have a discussion with you, but the truth is that isn't happening. So I can understand where it might seem circular, but it's not for the reasons you think.

We just want to hear thought out logic, but we always seem to get opinion disguised as logic.

If I've overlooked any particular argument then I'll be willing to discuss that with you. I just can't recall ever seeing or hearing one.

 

[BVS]

My issue is mainly that the question implies that increasing equality decreases freedom. It's a rhetorical trick that has yet to be shown to have any merit here.

I don't think BVS is entirely accurate in his assessment of INDY's logic. I think INDY generally has somewhat sound logic on the surface, but doesn't explain what he means enough when questioned on it. I think that's the main issue: that without further explanation some of the statements he makes seem faulty or underdeveloped. I certainly would like to engage in more of a back-and-forth with him and others, like yourself, as opposed to the general trend of this forum, which is reacting to news pieces. The dialogues are much more interesting to me, and I think it would be for the benefit of all to have more back-and-forth.

And while we are on the subject of name-calling and productive discussions, I do think, BVS, that you have a tendency to get frustrated by the direction of conversations in a way that becomes a detriment to them. There are times on this forum, and in any political arena, where people become angry and may overreact, and that is fine. It has happened to all of us here, save for those amazing few like Yolland who are so calm and collected all of the time. But you seem to do so pretty consistently, to the point where it comes off as rather dismissive. Yes, a lot of the conversations are redundant, and yes, there are times when people make completely illogical remarks. But flying off the handle with curt remarks, displays of annoyance, or generalizing statements about how "this is just another example of this poster's problem" do nothing for moving things forward. While it may be therapeutic to do here and there, you seem to do so in almost any extended discussion or debate, which seems a little odd to me. Not every discussion warrants disgust or anger or the need to display how confused you are that another poster could even think something like that. I think you often bring up good points and have good rebuttals, but coat them in such disdain that people want to engage you in a battle of snide remarks as opposed to a legitimate discussion.

I'm being somewhat hypocritical, of course. There are times when I make those snide remarks, or make half-assed remarks because I'm in a rush and simply want to put something down, even if it doesn't add to the discussion. There are times when I show immaturity, just like others, because I'm young and that makes me somewhat arrogant (and I really need to stop logging on to the Interference app while drinking). So, I'm not in a situation here where I'm unwittingly casting stones from a glass house. But I do think there are times where your posting style is disruptive when you may not even intend for it to be, and I think hearing it from someone who generally agrees with your points in a lot of the discussions is much more helpful than hearing it from someone like FinanceGuy for the umpteenth time.

You're pretty spot on. I think my biggest weakness in here is that I often turn off the human aspect and just see the reasoning, logic, and the debate and tackle it from an almost challenge or problem solving way. My convictions are from a very human and real place but my execution is sometimes from a debate/ challenge aspect rather than a conversation. And as you said I get frustrated, not when the conversation doesn't go my way or when I don't agree, but when that poster can't back up their stance or apply reasoning to their stance. My usual line of defense is often snark or being dismissive. Because of this approach I also don't take things personal(most of the time) therefore don't make personal attacks.

It's something I need to work on.

 

[nathan1977]

Worldview is important to consider when trying to understand that person's exposure or ability, but worldview is more about opinion not logic or reasoning.

I don't disagree with you -- it would be wonderful if the world ran on clear logic, and truth was objective for everyone to immediately recognize -- but the reality is much more muddied than we may care to admit. The problem is that the truth, from which we can extrapolate logic and reasoning, is a much slippier thing these days. Pick an issue, and there are lobbyists, advocates and activists on both sides eager to couch their belief as fact, and fund studies to prove that it is so. But when the facts are debatable, negligible and available to the highest bidder, how then are we left to reason?

For me, the primary issues underlying this debate are principles. How do we, as a secular nation, follow through on our commitment to the principle that all men are created equal, and subject to equal representation under the law? And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?

 

[Irvine511]

I AM WEARING A DRESS TO WORK RIGHT NOW.

#facepalm

it's probably my fault. my being sexually and emotionally attracted to men means that you can't possibly know how to act like a man.

 

[nathan1977]

it's probably my fault. my being sexually and emotionally attracted to men, i've subverted god-ordained gender roles and now how can you know how to act like a man?

You'd be amazed how often I wonder, "What would Irvine do?"

 

[Irvine511]

For me, the primary issues underlying this debate are principles. How do we, as a secular nation, follow through on our commitment to the principle that all men are created equal, and subject to equal representation under the law? And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?

if you don't think that gay people should get married, and this is due to a religious conviction, by all means, people are free to vote for politicians who act as they believe.

but what i don't understand is how the existence of gay people or the existence of SSM is somehow a violation of someone else's right to exercise their religion as they see fit.