[Sailor Steve]

I agree. A lot of Skybird's points in this newest argument do indeed make sense from a societal point of view. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions, but they are worthy of honest discussion and not derision.

Here in Utah large families are encouraged. The result is that, because of the obvious tax breaks for each child, people who opt to have no children, or who opt not to marry, or simply have not had children yet, are forced to pay for the schooling of all the children they don't have. From a stictly societal point of view this is a good thing, but it breeds a lot of resentment, especially from those who believe they are helping society by not having children.

It's just like welfare. On one hand you have the 'obvioius' position that as a society we need to take care of those who can't do it themselves, but on the other we have the negative that this requires that people be forced to provide that aid, whether they want to or not.

But here's something new: Prop 8 "defines" marriage as being between one man and one woman, but is that really a definition or is it a stricture? How would people feel if a law was suggested that gave 'Marriage' a true definition - A Legally Binding Contract Between Two People For The Production And Protection Of Children? That's what it really is, but I'll bet that 99% of the 'good people' who voted for Prop 8 would cringe at that definition.