A very interesting perspective on the gay marriage debate
 

So what should be rolled back?

Marriage is failing as an institution, esp. among the poor, long before gay marriage came on the scene.

This might be called "the nail in the coffin" argument. Maybe they ought to marshal their resources towards saving marriage, and not just fighting gay marriage and civil unions.

I am no huge backer of gay marriage. But I'm still waiting for more convincing arguments against it.

I like to say things like "Not only do I favor marriage for gays, I intend to make it compulsory." It gets a nice reaction (for my level of comedy, a chuckle is fabulous success).

Of course it could be argued that part of saving marriage is fighting gay marriage. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

I've stewed a long time about this issue. Usually when I approach problems such as this one this way I can break things down logically and a clear answer presents itself in the end. This issue is particularly difficult as it depends largely on one's worldview and somewhat on religion(although there are those who argue the latter). I do not believe it to be a civil rights issue as I am hearing more now from the pundets, et al. I lean more towards the arguements that point out the basic function of the human body and how it was designed to procreate. I know that there are many legions of people who choose not to view it that way, though.

Gay marriage doesn't get a rise out of me.

But I can't see that advocates have justified the need for the new transaction. Why does society need it?

Does the cost of gay marriage reward society enough? I don't see sufficient societal benefit.

If gays represent 1 to 2 percent of society, and if that is a constant, neither growing nor shrinking, should historical institutions be changed to accommodate sector of society for its aberration?

Heterosexual orientation represents standard orientation and behavior. Aberrant behavior to justify new transaction costs should be required to show societal benefit. I don't believe gay marriage has shown the requisite benefit to justify its existence.

There are two motives to its existence, first those legal and benefits attendant marriage and second legitimacy. The first is obvious. The second is a form of requiring legally those in society that don't view the transaction as legitimate as legitimate.

Does gay marriage and do gay rights deserve this status?

Obama should have announced he was against gay marriage, just to force Romney to support it. In fact Obama should intentionally "evolve" on every political issue out there over the next five months, just to frustrate Romney to the point that he can't keep up.

Simple translation: "Obama flip-flops good; Romney flip-flops bad."

I suppose if Clinton can be the first black president, then Obama can be the first gay one.