In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

Sorceress Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 8:03 PM
Is the sunshine fair to the night? This is not about what is "fair". The definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Asking if it is useful to society to allow homosexuals to marry is like asking if it's raining outside. The question is a non sequitur. I love lots of people. I am married to only one and he is of the opposite gender. You don't have to like the rules of society, but you do have to live within them. When a society finds that a behavior is unacceptable, a rule usually exists against it. You may not like it, but you must abide by it.
David3036 Wrote: Nov 04, 2012 8:08 AM
What would be an example of a marriage that is "useful to society"? Must a couple have children for their union to be "useful"? If so, there are lots of useless marriages among opposite-sex couples.

Maybe the more relevant question is, why does the institution of marriage have to be useful to society to justify its existence? Isn't it just supposed to be useful to the couple involved?

You might tell me that it's useful to society to have marriage in order to protect the children, So why isn't that an argument in FAVOR of same-sex marriage? Don't the children of same-sex couples deserve the same protections?
pastorial Wrote: Nov 04, 2012 1:12 PM
The Original King Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 10:46 AM
Sorceress...........no offense, but you're not making a very strong argument here. You're basically saying that it doesn't matter at all if SSM is useful to society.....it should simply be banned because those are the "rules of society". It should be noted that, when you do strip away the "it's ALWAYS been done this way" and "the book I consider to be holy tells me to be against it", arguments,99% of the anti-SSM arguments are blown away (and you're left with the beyond-stupid arguments such as, at some point in time, if SSM passes, someone is going to ask a second grader if she is going to marry a man or woman)
du2 Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 10:24 AM
So, I'll ask a question in the style the anti gay ask here, then Sorceress: to what extent is bigotry, prejudice and defamation acceptable behavior? When it's all said and done, part of the issue is defamation and misinformation against a targeted minority to instill distrust of them to the political and social extent they are ENDANGERED by it. Casual bigotry, discrimination and violence against gay people is a reality, but most here only try to justify that gay people DESERVE it. Big difference. Gay behavior is more acceptable than that which harms them wrongly and unfairly.

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...