[Aramike]

Because your arguments don't express the actual reasons you opopse this. Is 'tradition' really your main reason? If so, it's a shallow one.

No, it's respect for the majority's perception of a term, and an utter disrespect for tyranny of the minority.

Except for the one we're talking about, which you would deny.

Please explain for the class how a gay man does NOT have the right to marry?

A gay man (or woman) has PRECISELY the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that a heterosexual man has.

ANY MAN can marry a woman.
NO MAN can marry another man.

How are those different rights again?

No, it is my explanation for the origin of the taboo, not why I think it should exist.

I'm ambivalent on the subject. You brought it up as a comparison, and a bad one.

Bad one? Because, why, you said so?

It's the same exact situation. But I guess Steve's only for special rights in SOME circumstances, right?

I don't term it as "gay marriage". I merely state that I see no reason why gay should be prevented from marrying each other.

So, because YOU don't see any reason to prevent this, no one else's reasoning have any validity?

You, not "we", introduced incest in an attempt to divert the argument to something I supposedly couldn't answer. I had nothing to with it. It's a classical attack method, even used by the Pharisees with the coin trick. Please stick to the subject.

Nice attempt at doding the point. I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone else.

It's called "analogy", not diversion. If you want to rationalize an argument based upon it's correctness somehow being inherent, it only follows that such logic should hold true in an analogue. I am challenging your reasoning - that should have been clear. But, rather than answer that challenge you've attempted to remove it by insisting that you cannot see the parallel.

We both know you're smarter than that, and I believe you know exactly my point, and how it invalidates your inherent reasoning, and that's why YOU, not me, are guilty of the diversion.

Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.

No you wouldn't. I'm sure I addressed the reasoning why you wouldn't specifically, oh, say, 50 times in this thread.

Again you attempt to divert this to the personal. So far all of your objections have been based on tradition. Is there any single real reason why this is a bad thing?

Why WHAT'S a bad thing? Attempting to enforce the definition of a word to mean something other than what it is?

That one's obvious - communication relies upon words having specific meanings. Call it tradition, call it etymology - whatever. But I don't believe that a tiny segment of society should have any right to change the majority's belief in the meaning of a term.

As for making it personal, I'm not trying to and I don't see how, but I apologize if you're taking it that way. I would suggest taking a deep breath though and relaxing a little bit, because it seems clear to me that you're getting a bit overly worked up over the issue. It still is possible to have valid disagreements, right?

The bottom line is (and I've said this many times), I'm really not all that passionate about the subject one way or the other. I do however find this debate to be fascinating, even moreso at the resistance people have to the most simple of solutions. To be honest, I think Skybird's making some excellent points leaning me more and more into opposition to even MY compromise, but still I'm not particularly passionate in any way.

Why is that even a question? Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, as that is what the term means.

As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.

All laws regarding social concepts and constructs find basis in morality and moral judgement.

"Why shouldn't they take a lesser alternative and like it?" isn't an argument at all.

Have you read what I have been suggesting at all?

If so, explain to me how it's "lesser", because from where I sit, the word "equal" means, well, "equal".

Unless, of course, you conceed that the terminology holds some sort of intrinsic value in which case you would also have to conceed that one argument for not allowing gays the term "marriage" not associated with tradition would be to maintain said value because that value comes from within the CURRENT meaning of the term. Change the meaning, change the value.