Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

So far as I can see your messages make a case for gay marriage. The bigger the commitment, the less likely it is to be taken on for improper reasons.If gay marriage is not allowed then simple fairness requires that gays should be allowed the same benefits for whatever, lesser, commitments society permits them to make. To say that gays should be denied certain benefits because society won't permit them to make the formal commitments that would entitle them to those rights is hardly a defensible stance.k

There is no use in calling people irrational simply because they do not share your opinions. Nor is there any use in declaring your opinions logical truths.Heterosexuals are allowed to enter into commited relationships with their lovers which give them certain privileges and rights. And there is no reason why homosexuals should be denied similar privileges if they are prepared to make the same commitment. A say in the medical treatment of their partner is one obvious example. Therefore any claim that homosexuals "lack the basic requirements for marriage" should be viewed with suspicion.Tradition is not a valid reason to maintain discrimination.Nor, in a secular state, is religious belief a reason for witholding a purely secular legal status.SO there is certainly room for disagreement with your declarations, evne though you declare them as unquestionable fact.

quote:

---

And I did not call anyone irrational simply because they do not share my opinions.

---

That is exactly what you did.

quote:

---

I have not argued one thing from "tradition" or from "religious belief." Please review my argument. It is about logical qualifications for marriage.

---

Logic in itself cannot give you "qualifications for marriage". Any such qualifications necessarily depend on your idea of "marriage" and if others have a different view than yours the problem is not in their logic. Message 137, Message 178 indicate that religious beliefs as the basis your view of homosexuality (a relevant issue)In Message 99 you refer to marriage as a "cultural institution" to argue against change, and I don't think that it is wrong to label that an appeal to tradiiton. After all, institutions can be changed, so why woudl calling something an institution help your case if you were not appealing to tradition ?And in Message 56 the appeal to tradition and religion is quite clear.

quote:

---

...the definition of marriage does not require the Bible. It is as old as history and as broad as all cultures on earth. The Bible happens to define it clearly enough..

---

(And I note that although callign others irrational you also argue that "Freedom of Religion" in the U.S>means that "a "Tyranny of the Majority" is acceptable if it is based on religion, which is quite the opposite of the truth).In short you insist that you concept of marriage is the only valid one, based on an appeal tp religon and tradition. And that is the whole of your argument.

quote:

---

There are ways gays can legally arrange for certain rights that do not involve marriage, which only damages the whole meaning of marriage for everyone.

---

I do to see how anyone could honestly make the claim in the last sentence. It certainly isn't true.