Don't give me that "It's for the children" crap! According to Judge Smith, "an important function of marriage" -- [is] to "create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born." Then why do we not require that couples who plan to be married get fertility tests? Why are heterosexuals allowed to marry when they do not intend to have children? Why are marriages are not dissolved when a couple no longer has children at home?

homosexual behavior IS normal....if you are homosexual. Homosexual behavior is NOT normal, if you are heterosexual.

It doesn't matter what "most American's" think. Back in the 1800's , most Americans thought black people were personal property. Most American's also thought women were second class citizens. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

Blacks are not property according to what objective norm?

Women are not second-class citizens according to what objective norm?

You see, you want to have it both ways: you appeal to an objective, universal norm when it comes to some things (the inherent human worth of blacks and women) but reject it when it comes to sexual behavior (or any behavior, for that matter).

No, homosexual behavior is abnormal in both senses of the word normal: (a) most people do not engage in it and (b) the objective norm that it is against nature to ram your penis into another man's rectum.

According to your thinking, I could simply say, "Blacks are my personal property if I'm so inclined to believe."

Get this through your stupidly, thick skull - homosexual behavior IS normal....if you are homosexual. Homosexual behavior is NOT normal, if you are heterosexual.

It doesn't matter what "most American's" think. Back in the 1800's , most Americans thought black people were personal property. Most American's also thought women were second class citizens. They were wrong then and they're wrong now. The rights and protections of this country's born and raised, tax-paying citizens is not a matter for your narrow minded opinions.

Let's make it illegal for YOU to get married (even though 1/3 of your paycheck goes to Uncle Sam) and we'll see who's "whinning" then...

stupid bitch.

It is hard to read the New York decision without seeing how weak the legal arguments are. Hopefully, when the matter returns to the legislature, people making those arguments will be embarrassed by them and will eventually come to grips with the real arguments in the dissent and in many of these letters.

non-ideological, the so-called (silly) argument that homophobes are closet cases doesn't apply to all, and i take that it probably doesn't apply to you, but there's a strong feeling that it applies to some (silly) people who've posted here... I'm not so sure it'd be a such silly argument though if we were discussing, say, gay bashing and the killing of gay people... but we're not so let's just call it silly.

Some posters have argued that civil unions are what gays should really be working towards. But marriage is about much more than legal rights; it is about how the community views you. Rightly or wrongly, married people are viewed as "normal," stable, etc.

Yes, thanks for admitting is about much more than the economics or legal aspects as some gay marriage advocates like to claim.

It is in fact about social acceptance as anyone who actually knows pro-litigation LGBT can quickly verify.

Actually the pro litigation half of the LGBT community are often rather disingenuous and politically savvy as they usually emphasize the economic and legal aspects because they’re less controversial. And yet they don’t take the shortest route to them: civil unions.

In fact the pro-litigation half of the LGBT community can mostly already afford the legal counsel to acquire the same protections as civil unions under existing laws. These are often couples with seven digit incomes, and who give most generously to local politicians of course.

That's why they're the only people who can afford to claim they're fighting for something they're continually failing to win while ignoring the quicker route to the stated goal. Meanwhile the other half of the LGBT community that supports civil unions and that can’t afford legal fees get nothing, or a little free community counsel, but it’s still insufficient.

While I understand the desire for social acceptance it's not achievable by litigation and that's actually counter productive as recent events have shown. That's one reason by civil unions are by far the wiser choice and the only path to positive results for the whole LGBT community and eventually to sort matters out over time.

The pro-litigation community is just spinning it's wheels because they can afford to and it feels good. In the meanwhile they're hurting politcal allies and the other half of the less fortunate LGBT community who want civil unions.

The vast majority of Americans do not view homosexuals as normal. If most Americans viewed homosexuals as normal, the legislatures would pass the laws sanctioning homosexual unions. The norm is people having sex with folks of the opposite sex. Homosexual behavior is common, but it is not normal.

"First of all, me thinks "non-ideological" doesn't understand the meaning of the words in that handle. If you're expressing an opinion, you're basing it on your personal ideology."

How sophistic. A semantic argument linked to an ad-hom. It's also illiterate.

When the neocons are referred to as ideologues it’s not simply stating they have opinions otherwise the word become universal losing any useful meaning. Duh.

Some posters have argued that civil unions are what gays should really be working towards. But marriage is about much more than legal rights; it is about how the community views you. Rightly or wrongly, married people are viewed as "normal," stable, etc. For example, once a straight person reaches a certain age and hasn't married or isn't in a very serious/live-in relationship, people start to view him or her as somehow outside the norm. It isn't fair, but it's real.

In order for any minority to be accepted in society, the majority has to see them as more or less like them. As weird as it sounds, the Cosby Show probably did more for black integration into society than a lot of other things.

It's true that married couples are no longer in the majority in this country, but most heterosexuals marry at some point in their lives, and it is still seen as the normal, desirable thing to do. By denying gays the right to marry, the majority is depriving them of a significant means by which they can be viewed as "just like them." I recently attended a wedding party for two women who got married in Canada, and it was, in most ways, just like every other wedding I've attended. As someone attending the party, to me these women are now in the category of all of these other people whose weddings I've attended, and that, I know, will subtly impact on how I feel about them, will make them, in some way, feel more like me.

In addition, I think that when you're married, the surrounding community takes your relationship more seriously. When two unmarried people break up, people shrug and say, "oh well, they'll find someone else." When two married people break up, the community (usually) sees it as a tragedy, and friends and family will go to bat to try to help the couple through their problems. This is another important aspect of marriage that won't be solved through civil unions.

The reality is, the right to marry is much more than the right to inherit and all of the legal protections. It's a means of being an accepted part of the community. I don't say any of this to disparage singles -- I didn't marry till I was 35, and went through my share of not feeling accepted, or having people ask why I hadn't gotten married yet (in other words, what was wrong with me). I don't agree with this attitude, but I also don't deny that it's real, and if two gay people love each other and want to make that commitment, it isn't fair to deny them that.