you'd consider marrying a dude an option?

It would be an option, yes.

Just like smoking dope would be an option if it were legal.

Would it be an option that you would likely take?

It wouldn't be for me. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality or same sex marriage. But I'm not gay. Because of that same sex marriage would not be an option for me. Were straight marriage banned, staying unmarried would be my only option.

No.  Staying unmarried would be the option that you would choose.  It would not be your only option.

Technically I would have the option to marry a guy. Realistically I would not have the option to get married.

This is my point. We are taking away marriage from some people who want to get married without a good reason for doing so. What harm does allowing gay marriage do?

You keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving the same answer: because it throws thousands of years of human culture, tradition and social norms out the window.

Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman.  This is true of all cultures throughout the course of human history.  The concept of same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon, over the past 30 years or so.  It seems rather foolish to throw away thousands of years of culture, tradition and social norms over something that is, in the big picture, "brand new".

Skip a couple of days, miss nothing.

You smoking pot, or poles, does not affect me.     Yet you're cool with me voting on your decision to smoke pot but vehemently oppose my vote on your smoking of poles.   

Explain.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/4/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):
You keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving the same answer: because it throws thousands of years of human culture, tradition and social norms out the window.

Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman.  This is true of all cultures throughout the course of human history.  The concept of same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon, over the past 30 years or so.  It seems rather foolish to throw away thousands of years of culture, tradition and social norms over something that is, in the big picture, "brand new".

What harm is there in allowing gay people to participate in that tradition?

They already can.  A gay man can marry a woman.  She doesn't even need to be gay.  Same for gay women.  They can marry either straight or gay men.

Why not allow them to marry the person they want to marry? What interest do you have in regulating their life?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/4/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):
You keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving the same answer: because it throws thousands of years of human culture, tradition and social norms out the window.

Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman.  This is true of all cultures throughout the course of human history.  The concept of same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon, over the past 30 years or so.  It seems rather foolish to throw away thousands of years of culture, tradition and social norms over something that is, in the big picture, "brand new".

This.

The "harm" is in the payment of insurance/social security benefits.   That is money out of my pocket, indirectly, for unions that have never been seen in the history of the world.  


If the monetary aspect of SSM were removed, there would be less opposition. 

Traditions change all the time. What interest do you have in telling someone else what traditions they can participate in?

What interest do you have in SSM?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2012 10:54:00 AM (view original):
The "harm" is in the payment of insurance/social security benefits.   That is money out of my pocket, indirectly, for unions that have never been seen in the history of the world.  


If the monetary aspect of SSM were removed, there would be less opposition. 

Allowing gay marriage actually increases government revenue:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/02/gay-onomics-and-the-marriage-debate.html