Harm in Homosexuality?

Rrhain,I hate to drop in on a debate when I wasn't involved, but I found something really curious.In posts 1 and 8 of this thread, you argue for the view that marriage is historically for the purpose of bearing children, and that those values are still held widely today.Yet in this thread, you argue FOR allowing homosexuals to participate in marriage. That seems strange to me.you ask, ... the fact is, in homosexual relationships, children can't be borne. And, as you yourself believe, that IS our society's core purpose and meaning of marriage.I understand and completely agree with your arguments with '"Separate but equal" doesn't work.' But by proposing a solution where homosexuals are allowed to 'marry' in the classical sense of the word, you're changing the purpose of marriage itself from child-bearing to something like a union between two people who love each other.So it seems we have conflicting ideas in our society; one towards equality of treatment, including a legal bond between those who love each other, and one of the purpose of marriage. I just don't see how you can argue FOR each of these things in two different threads; they oppose each other. I'd expect you to either oppose gays being married, or to not use your 'the purpose of marriage is bearing children' argument in the other thread.I'm not trying to accuse; just to point out something that surprised me and made me confused. You're one of the most straightforward, clear, logical posters I've read here, so I'm really interested to understand your thought on this. 50% expects I'm thinking wrong, and 50% doesn't know what to expect.Thanks!
BenP.S. Sorry if this adds complexity to the conversation; however it seemed to me that holmes was arguing something along the lines of 'it goes against the meaning / purpose of marriage.'

holmes,I can't speak for Rrhain, and I'm sure he can give you a much more detailed answer with historical references, etc. I'm just not that smart. Having two separate things is just dangerous and a recipe for disaster.
* Increases complexity of the law
* Allows for their future separation
* Allows for them to be 'made synonymous' only partly.
* Allows for future legislation that targets some aspect of marriage, but improperly considers civil unionsIn my engineering experience, having 'parallel items,' and trying to remember to consider them both leads to real problems. I see the legal system as one huge, complex, hack-filled computer program. Loop-holes are security bugs; it is this kind of computer programming that leads to these kinds of bugs; I see it as the same for law-making. Ideally, it would work, but in practice, it just doesn't. In a large system, adding complexity is simply adding more things for someone to fail to know. Individually, it may seem ok, but when considered in such a large, opaque system, it's dangerous.In other words, there's got to be a better solution. I'd only accept this kind of solution as a last resort. The best way to do it is to do it right the first time; not to accept some partway solution for now, and try to fix later. It doesn't happen like that. Not in software, and not in the law.So, these are my basic assertions, with only my experience in computer programming offered as motivation to understand my position. Although, the same type of thing does apply to scientific theory-building.Let's just drop the name 'marriage.' I think that would go a long way. Make one set of laws with 'unions.' Those laws are for heterosexuals or homosexuals. These laws include provisions for having children, whether your own or adopted. These also apply to heterosexuals or homosexuals. Homosexuals can have children too.Drop the name 'marriage,' and remove the seeming dependency on the religious notion. Then use the existing law for all people. The only reason people wouldn't want to do that is their desire to tie law to religion.Too bad our legal system isn't like CBA's in sports, where there's a contract lifetime for each law, and they need to be renegotiated every XX years in order to keep them up-to-date. Seems like our legal system is a matter of the 'haves' (those protected under the law already) vs. the 'have-nots', and the have-nots are ALWAYS outnumbered. I think many people would sing a different tune if their right to establish a legal union was dependent on resolving this problem.Ben