Macfistowannabe;
I will now respectfully agree to disagree with you. Its been succesful, I feel, in that we haven't ripped each other to shreds - but now I'm tired. Part of the reason why I don't like talking about gay rights is because I find it exhausting. I find it exhausting as someone who is concerned with Human Rights and Human Rights law (law student, don't hold it against me
) and as someone who has a vested interest in discrimination law - I enjoy talking about it to a 'certain' extent. After that point it becomes less enjoyable and more tiring, eventually depressing - its depressing that discrmination is still part of the law, and thats all there is to it.
My point is this; there is no moral (note, I said moral, not religious) reason for disallowing gay marriage. I do not accept your example that allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing that freak show parade you mentioned; the unions of which you speak of result in either genetic failures and innocent parties falling prey to something truly sinister - how does two men or women in a loving relationship affect ANYONE? How does it?
The fact is it doesn't, and if it does, I don't believe you, or anyone, has proven how. It doesn't involve anyone else, it doesn't involve taking advantage of someone, and it doesn't involve spawning children with defects. Its just about love, and thats all there is to it.
I admit that I don't much understand your view of marriage, I would criticise it as out of date, but I have one final word on it; you said in your post that marriage is meant to fulfill the needs of a man and a woman; now, I know you don't mean this, but marriage sounds little more than a legitamized brothel. Now, I know you don't mean that, but I genuinely believe that marriage has nothing to do with pro-creation. Thats not a liberal or a conservative position at all, as Dreadsox has demonstrated.
If marriage is about love, and love does not involve the suffering of innocent parties, then gay marriage is not as wrong as members of society think.
Ant.