User blog comment:Mrdaimion/Why we Shouldn't Have Gay Marriage/@comment-1874924-20121220013745/@comment-1874924-20121220062757

Mikey, for the most part you seem to have talked past my points instead of addressing them directly. That is the logical fallacy of "irrelevant thesis", defined as proving or attempting to prove a point other than the one at issue. Rather than rehashing everything, since I've spent too much time on this already, I'll just hit a few points.

1. The notion of recognizing same-sex marriage being "marriage equality" is your opinion, but you tend to portray it as settled fact. This is seriously misleading. Preventing that is the reason why ethical journalistic practice requires putting contested terms in quotation marks. You didn't do this in your first post; and in the second, you only did it the first time you used the term. A contested term should be enclosed in quotes every time it appears.

5. The legal benefits of civil marriage are not rights, in the sense that the government could eliminate them for everyone if it chose. If you disagree, then please show me the exact words in the Constitution that would prevent it.

10. Love has never been a requirement for marriage, and the notion of marrying for love is (when measured against the millenia of human history) a fairly recent one. When single-breadwinner households were the norm, many a loveless marriage endured and even thrived for decades because of the functional differences between the spouses. Indeed, couples that start loveless (e.g. in societies where marriages are arranged) often become loving over time for various reasons, not least because women are genetically programmed to bond emotionally with their sexual partners. If the couple love each other from the start, that's a bonus, but that's all it is.

As for Dra's question, Wifey and I have no children and no plans for any. If the government decided to take away marriage benefits from all childless couples, I would not oppose that, because I understand the purpose of legally recognizing marriage; but I have no obligation to forego those benefits unilaterally.

And lest there be any misunderstanding, I would support recognition of same-sex "marriage" if somebody would just give me a logically valid reason why I should. I've been saying that for over a decade, and I'm still waiting. As matters currently stand, though, I oppose it vehemently for two reasons: first, I find most of the supporting arguments flagrantly deceptive, and I don't like to see liars prosper; and second, I think the judicial coercion involved is extremely harmful to our society. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live under a judicial dictatorship.