There is a difference between being offended by something and not being convinced of it's necessity.

Don't try to bait me.

I think it is detrimental to societal interests for the government to change the purpose of marriage as it has been instituted without much more serious discussion and investigation, simply to appease a single group's interests.

You have the conch. What's the word?

If one needs convincing that anything short of full and equal privileges be granted to homosexuals, than one would seem to have some sort of problem with the concept. Or the people. "Offended" is simply one term of many to connote the same general sentiment.

I'm not baiting you.

I disagree with your rhetoric.

Homosexuality has been around forever. Yet hetersexuality still flourishes.

The "defense of marriage" is a scaremongering tactic. Your marriage is safe, regardless of whomever else is getting married down the street.

It isn't just a single group's interest. I am not gay. I am in a heterosexual marriage. I would like to see homosexuals given the right to get married. And if it happens, I have a feeling my marriage and my kids will survive.

I bet if your marriage did fail it would be because of your or your spouse's heterosexuality. That's usually the but for cause from what I've seen. Most marriages fail because of one spouse or the other's heterosexuality, not homosexuality.

Good point. The notion that homosexuality is going to threaten my family boggles my mind. Do people actually believe that? I consider myself lucky I dont walk around with that kind of paranoia weighing me down.

It's called homophobia, a special case of paranoia. "Defense of Marriage" is PR. It's so smarmy sounding. They don't have the courage to say why they really want to corrupt the Bill of Rights this way--they believe homosexuality is a sin, or they don't like gays. Those are the real reasons but they can't say it.

They are granted full and equal privileges. There is no statutory exclusion that homosexuals not be allowed to marry, they just have to marry a member of another gender. I imagine you reject that notion and say that the statute is facially discriminatory and I can see your point.

As I said in my original post, I remain conflicted about the whole matter. I don't pretend to know the correct course of action in the SSM debate. I know you feel like this is strictly a civil rights issue and I sympathize with this position. Then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea of changing the definition of marriage without a more thorough understanding of the potential consequences. But there will be consequences. You and others say they will be positive. Others say they will be negative. That's why I prefer to take a wait and see approach.

I will admit that I'm turned off by the rhetoric from both sides. I don't like the Adam and Steve jokes and find them tasteless. There are people who are intolerant of homosexuals and they have muddied the debate. I also don't like the accusations of homophobia when genuine concerns exist and the mocking attitude towards those concerned about how this change will affect their families and future generations. The bottom line is that those concerned about the consequences of this change need to be appeased and it won't suffice to merely make fun of them.

minn_stat,

Are you saying that gay marriage itself will cause calamities spoken of by prophets or that gay marriage will piss God off and he will send punishment?

The 749 gay couples (did I get the number right?) causing the problems you stated seems way off base. Unless, of course, the population of Sweden is under about 2500 people.

I was happy to see you didn't use the "if everyone was gay, society would end in one generation" argument. That was pretty popular when I was a kid.

The bottom line for me is I feel secure in my marriage and I don't think allowing others the same thing cheapens it in any way. Even if it did, so what? Why should I think my marriage or happiness is more important than theirs? As far as I know, they aren't trying to kill heterosexual marriage, they just want equality.

Come on. There's no "appeasing" those who want a constitutional amendment. That's the whole point of the amendment. Most these people who want it live in places where they'll never legalize gay marriage anyway. That's not good enough for them. They don't want it anywhere in America. I just hope that the American people retain the good sense not to amend the Constitution.

I'll meet them halfway, though. This is actually more of a state's rights issue for me, believe it or not. If Utahns don't want to legalize gay marriage, where I sit right now I'm not ready to get to fired up to want Congress to make them do it with a federal civil rights statute. (I could change my mind.) But it really enrages me that people in Utah or Alabama or the LDS Church want to tell California or Washington they can't marry gay people or recognize gay marriages. It doubly froths me that they just feel that way becuase they're getting reinforcement of their prejudices since childhood from over the pulpit.

I don't live in Utah or Alabama for a reason, and I don't want to contend with what I regard as their backward mores where I live. For aesthetic reasons, I'd like to see the Bill of Rights remain pristine in terms of protecting not anywhere abridging civil liberties.