You realize that supporters of same-sex marriage aren’t aliens to your culture but in fact come from it and share many of its values? It’s not obvious why any subset of a community should have a monopoly over terms and values that are common to all.

“A mutually sensitive compromise would be to invent a lovely sounding neologism for these Gay Unions and write a new set of far more appropriate state laws governing these domestic arrangements.”

One problem with this is that whenever domestic partnerships and the like were raised in the past, they have been opposed on the grounds that they devalue marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage talk about civil unions as an option only as a very last resort; otherwise, they have treated domestic partnerships as being as much non-options as same-sex marriage.

“Or is this campaign really just an onslaught against the oldest universal human structure that has always been the basic building block binding successful societies together.”

See above. People who support same-sex marriage see it as a logical development of a principle endorsed not only by certain subsets of the population.

However MF ‘s post abounds in other non-sequiturs. If a minority of us start falling off our bicycles, due to the contemporary rise in obesity, and then decide to take to the streets in motorized baby carriages, it would be absurd to call these carriages “bicycles”. It would be sensitive to the fat and disordered minority, though risky and insensitive to traditional bicyclers attempting to use bike paths. Nothing is simple.

Some people want the word “Marriage” to be diluted to accommodate them?

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

If one seeks secular support for the natural law of man-woman-children marriage, the science of Anthropology long ago confirmed the essential function of predominantly stable marriage to the structure of its host society. Loose or loosen it and the society is at risk of toppling.

Supporters of SSM are failing to love us enough. They are disrespecting us in their desire to defacing something most precious to us. A mutually sensitive compromise would be to invent a lovely sounding neologism for these Gay Unions and write a new set of far more appropriate state laws governing these domestic arrangements. Or is this campaign really just an onslaught against the oldest universal human structure that has always been the basic building block binding successful societies together.

I caution opponents of SSM to not cede the field before the game begins by accepting the mythical “separation of church and state”. There is no such thing. All legislation legislates morality. There is no other kind of legislation. You cannot have a reality-based discussion on this subject without including religious concepts. Religion and so-called secular governing entities address the same areas with different protocols. . Church and state are dissolved in a common solution, not emulsified.

Male and female characteristics aren’t dichotomous, but rather represent extremes on a spectrum. Mixtures of male and female traits, to one degree or another, can be quite common.

An often overlooked fact in this discussion. Thank you.

Male and female characteristics aren’t dichotomous, but rather represent extremes on a spectrum. Mixtures of male and female traits, to one degree or another, can be quite common.

The Catholic bishops and the Catholic Church are opposed to Obama’s Healthcare Mandate because of religious Catholic doctrine.

Also, secularism is arguably a “religion” as well. Depends on how you want to define what is a “religion.”

If the Constitutional test is whether or not a law has a religious motivation, then religious people are effectively banned from politics. The religious/secular dichotomy is a smokescreen.

Do you concede the general principle in #72?

Namely:

The abuse of a thing does not negate its proper use.

Let’s continue this line of logic:

Are you seriously suggesting that anti-murder laws _haven’t_ been enforced in the past and didn’t produce greater evils?

Are you seriously suggesting that anti-theft laws _haven’t_ been enforced in the past and didn’t produce greater evils?

Are you seriously suggesting that anti-organized crime laws _haven’t_ been enforced in the past and didn’t produce greater evils?

Point?

The abuse of a thing does not negate its proper use.

Other examples: Driving a car to get somewhere vs. drunken driving killing someone.

Gun ownership to hunt for food vs. gun ownership to kill someone.

Knife ownership to cut food vs. knife ownership to kill someone.

Biblical patriarchy vs. abusive pastors and husbands.

Anti-sodomy law vs. the abuse of the anti-sodomy law.

“There is instructive value in having laws like anti-sodomy: they say that we as a society agree that it is wrong. I think that would be a good thing, but not an absolute or essential good. It would need to be balanced, for example, against the message sent by writing a law that could never be enforced, or could only be enforced in a way that would in turn produce greater evils.”

Are you seriously suggesting that anti-sodomy laws _haven’t_ been enforced in the past and didn’t produce greater evils? (Making intimate relationships impossible, even dangerous, for the low single-digit percentage of people who aren’t heterosexual is a pretty significant evil, no?)

“Many supporters of SSM don’t realize that using the word “marriage” for gay families is invading upon a very sensitive and beloved area.”

You recognize that you and yours don’t have a monopoly on our common culture, its language, and its terms, right?

A: “TUAD, I’m not talking about that now. If your standard for banning same-sex marriage is merely that scripture prohibits it, then homosexuality should also be banned, not just gay marriage. If homosexuality is as much a moral ill as many have made it out to be, then by that logic it’s just as much a danger even if it doesn’t receive benefits from the government.”

“If homosexuality is as much a moral ill as many have made it out to be”

Nikolai, forget the “many.” Does God, in His Holy Word, say that homosexual behavior is a moral ill, a sin?

Nikolai Volk, Do you affirm Scripture’s teachings that same-sex behavior is sin?