Another perv congressman?

[wmenorr67]

So what about the Yankees-Red Sox series?

[Pew pew pew]

So what about the Yankees-Red Sox series?

Steroids?

[Pew pew pew]

Anyway, this was a depressing thread, I'll buy the after-thread beer if someone buys the ammo. (Which we use beforehand and not on each other, mind you.)

[Nitrogen]

I'm up for that.  I think we have one day left till it all gets expensive anyways, right?

[LadySmith]

I've got to give One Of Many and "E" for Effort. 

[Perd Hapley]

You can go ahead and look up other militaries that have gays serving openly. It doesn't effect anything negatively. You'd have a lot more Arabic linguists, too. 

Your first answer is not very satisfactory.  I thought we were talking about the U.S. military, not other militaries.  Other out-and-open militaries may be in nations where attitudes are much different.  You're the second homosexual I have talked to that brings up the issue of homosexual Arab linguists.  I'm curious about the connection, there.  That would be a line of argument I would be open to, if the cost-benefit analysis is convincing. 

Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category.  Marriage requires partners of opposite sex.  That's what it is.  Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage.  That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact.  It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides. 

It's a word. You're treating it like it's something special. It's just a word.

I'm treating it like anything else.  You can't get around the facts by saying they don't really matter.  We're discussing a concept, and that concept has certain qualities.  Heterosexuality is one of the necessary qualities of marriage.  Not because I said so, or any holy book tells me so, but because that's what it is about.  That's not narrow-mindedness, that's just reality.  Again, you might as well say that triangles can be triangles without the third side.

I don't think homosexual couples meet that standard, and I will vote for politicians who agree with me. 

Based on WHAT? My friend who teaches autistic children all day long, just because he's gay, he's not fit to raise children?

Based on what I and many experts think is good for children.  There's really no escaping moral judgments when it comes to the issue of govt. regulation of adoption.  Unless of course, you think we should let cult leaders adopt children, and people who practice animal sacrifice, and porn producers and so forth.   As I said, it's an area where the nanny-state is quite fitting, as we're talking about children without natural parents. 

Is that supposed to surprise me, or what? 

No. People seem to focus purely on the "icky sex". It's about a little bit more then that.

I don't think there's much talk about icky sex in this thread.  Not in my comments, certainly. 

[Perd Hapley]

Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category.

Yawn - this argument's 'slippery slope' toward segregation of all types been repeated ad infinitum. Try reading one of those responses.

Yeah, arguments are boring when you've made up your mind against the facts.  I've heard your arguments before, too.  The idea that any social issue can fit the racial template is especially old.  Race = Sex = Sexuality = Age = Ability = Whatever   But of course, it isn't true.  A marriage between a man and woman of different skin color isn't the same issue as a "marriage" between two men.  But, of course, the "progressives" always like to think we're on an upward track from the bad old days of racism and homophobia to the bright future when everyone will be happy.*  But, of course, that isn't true, either.  Inter-racial marriages have a long history, very often with social acceptance.  The attitudes and laws that prevented them for a few centuries were a silly and unnatural aberration to be remedied.  Homosexuality has a very different history.  It has enjoyed varying degrees of toleration or acceptance over the millenia.  But the notion that such relationships constitute a marriage just comes out of nowhere, with nothing to support it, whether of utility, of reason or of tradition. 

Marriage requires partners of opposite sex.  That's what it is.  Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage.  That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact.  It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides.

Marriage is a word, a concept. It has no physical being, their is no innate definition or factuality. 'Marriage' is whatever a society chooses to definite marriage as. 

That is nothing but sophistry.  If you really believe that pablum, then let's all cheer the President for his glorious, immediate and total victory in Iraq.  Glory, victory, peace, democracy, freedom?  But words that we can define as we wish, with no innate definition or factuality.  Marriage is an avocado sandwich and hatred is two cartoon bunnies kissing in a dewy meadow. 

Or better yet, if marriage is whatever we choose it to be, why is your idea of it better than my idea?  There is obviously some "innate definition" that appeals to you, which makes you think homosexuals should be included.  Otherwise, why mess with what society has chosen?

It is about legal recognition of family ties. 

I see childless hetero married couples all the time.

When you go sign up for a marriage license, does the clerk question you about the timetable for procreation?

When you got your Concealed Carry Permit, were you asked whom you planned to shoot and when?  Do your local police come by to make sure you're carrying your gun?  I doubt it, but in many states, you are required to demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece.  Of course, one must meet certain standards to get a driver's license, but no one checks to make sure you are driving.  Likewise, there are requirements for a liquor license.  Is it revoked if no one ever buys a beer? 

Now I didn't say that marriage is legally recognized because of the kids.  I said "family ties."  Marriage, legally, is there to clear up who belongs to what family, inheritance, custody, visitation rights, etc.  Homosexuality has nothing to do with these things.  It does not produce children.  It does not create families.  It does not provide any more pressing need to visit a loved one than any other close friendship.  If these issues need to be addressed for non-marriage relationships, let them be dealt with as such, not on the basis of private sexual behavior. 


*I'm not calling you a "progressive," as I don't know whether you are.  I'm just identifying that mistake in reasoning as one that usually comes from regressive - uh, I mean progressive - thinking.

[wooderson]

The idea that any social issue can fit the racial template is especially old.  Race = Sex = Sexuality = Age = Ability = Whatever   But of course, it isn't true.  A marriage between a man and woman of different skin color isn't the same issue as a "marriage" between two men. 

The 'racial template' is irrelevant.

The issue is whether or not the state can restrict the conduct of or benefits/privileges given to individuals, in an arbitrary nature.

That is nothing but sophistry.  If you really believe that pablum, then let's all cheer the President for his glorious, immediate and total victory in Iraq.  Glory, victory, peace, democracy, freedom?  But words that we can define as we wish, with no innate definition or factuality.  Marriage is an avocado sandwich and hatred is two cartoon bunnies kissing in a dewy meadow.

The President is an interesting one to bring up. He declared 'victory' by his own defintion - and we had 'won' the war against Saddam. So, yes, we do redefine 'victory' as situations arise and change.

But, no, the idea that definitions, norms and cultural mores change over time - that there is no universal and unchanging definition of a legal/social/religion construct like marriage - is not sophistry. (Ironically, denying language's capacity for growth is more akin to what we call sophistry today.)

When I refer to an object, the language used is also a construct (just to head off that particularly boring bit). But when you and I are in the same room with a 'chair' - it has physical presence. We cannot alter its shape, texture or color with our words. Marriage has no such qualities - there is nothing immutable about 'marriage.' It exists purely in our minds (and the documents and rituals our mind create for it).

Or better yet, if marriage is whatever we choose it to be, why is your idea of it better than my idea?

Because 'my idea' affords the most freedom to the most people. Because 'my idea' renders the state neutral on matters of personal morality.

Because there is no legitimate argument that two men should not be able to marry - it brings no harm to anyone else. All opposition is centered in desire rather than need. "I don't want gays to marry."

When you got your Concealed Carry Permit, were you asked whom you planned to shoot and when?  Do your local police come by to make sure you're carrying your gun?  I doubt it, but in many states, you are required to demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece.  Of course, one must meet certain standards to get a driver's license, but no one checks to make sure you are driving.  Likewise, there are requirements for a liquor license.  Is it revoked if no one ever buys a beer?

Heh - you slipped up there: "demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece."

So the state would then be justified in denying the privilege and benefits of marriage to individuals of either sex who are incapable of procreation?

I said "family ties."  Marriage, legally, is there to clear up who belongs to what family, inheritance, custody, visitation rights, etc.  Homosexuality has nothing to do with these things.  It does not produce children.  It does not create families.

You're contradicting yourself - "I didn't say it was about children - rather, about 'family ties.' But then you want to redefine 'family ties' solely in terms of children and child-rearing. (Of course, 'marriage' does not actually deal with custody or visitation rights - court decrees do in cases of separation, divorce or non-marriage.)

And, of course, you ignore the fact that gay couples who adopt - would, and do, face all manner of 'family issues.'

It does not provide any more pressing need to visit a loved one than any other close friendship.  If these issues need to be addressed for non-marriage relationships, let them be dealt with as such, not on the basis of private sexual behavior. 

Answered, still boring.

[Perd Hapley]

The issue is whether or not the state can restrict the conduct of or benefits/privileges given to individuals, in an arbitrary nature.

Again, more leftist sophistry.  Gender is real.  It is not arbitrary.  The heterosexuality of marriage is not arbitrary, it is in fact the reason why marriage exists, because the sexual relationship between men and women is different than other relationships.  Two dudes living together, who cares?  Why do we need to recognize that in our laws?  If they want to get powers of attorney or put each other in their wills, then let them.  But when men and women live together, there are suddenly children running about, and families happening.  Nothing arbitrary about that difference. 

That is nothing but sophistry.  If you really believe that pablum, then let's all cheer the President for his glorious, immediate and total victory in Iraq.  Glory, victory, peace, democracy, freedom?  But words that we can define as we wish, with no innate definition or factuality.  Marriage is an avocado sandwich and hatred is two cartoon bunnies kissing in a dewy meadow.

The President is an interesting one to bring up. He declared 'victory' by his own defintion - and we had 'won' the war against Saddam. So, yes, we do redefine 'victory' as situations arise and change.

So you won't dispute that Bush's victory in Iraq (in 2003) was as real as our defeat of the Japanese in 1945?  I don't want to argue about Bush here, I'm just saying that victory means something.  And marriage means something.  It doesn't just mean two people living happily together. 

But, no, the idea that definitions, norms and cultural mores change over time - that there is no universal and unchanging definition of a legal/social/religion construct like marriage - is not sophistry. (Ironically, denying language's capacity for growth is more akin to what we call sophistry today.)

I'm not talking about semantics, I'm talking about a concept having some continuity, no matter how minimal.  Of course marriage changes.  Marriage has been polygamous, it has been used as a tool of foreign policy and business.  Marriages have taken place between small girls and old men, between people who've never seen each other before, and between those who did not consent to the union.  Marriages have been life-long, and they are often laughably short today.  But like anything else, there are qualities that are essential, and there are qualities that are accidental.  I can't think of any quality more essential to marriage than its heterosexuality.  Love is not always there.  Sex is not always there.  Children are not always there.  Longevity is not always there.  Commitment and caring are not always there.  But heterosexuality is always there. 

When I refer to an object, the language used is also a construct (just to head off that particularly boring bit). But when you and I are in the same room with a 'chair' - it has physical presence. We cannot alter its shape, texture or color with our words. Marriage has no such qualities - there is nothing immutable about 'marriage.' It exists purely in our minds (and the documents and rituals our mind create for it).

How very deep of you.  A concept is not less real than a physical object.  And when you change it too much, you change it into a new concept.  In the same way, the chair will be a stool, if you cut it down some. 

Or better yet, if marriage is whatever we choose it to be, why is your idea of it better than my idea?

Because 'my idea' affords the most freedom to the most people. Because 'my idea' renders the state neutral on matters of personal morality.

Because there is no legitimate argument that two men should not be able to marry - it brings no harm to anyone else. All opposition is centered in desire rather than need. "I don't want gays to marry."

Firstly, I don't say "gays" in my head, I say "homosexuals."  I like to use real words.  Need and desire?  Where did I discuss my desires?  Is that just your prejudiced opinion about people like me?  Just flailing against whatever makes us uncomfortable, right?  And as far as need goes, please explain why homosexuals "need" to see their partners in the hospital more than close, non-sexual friends do.  Or why homosexual couples "need" to adopt children more than two non-sexual room-mates do. 

Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense, or that they should have govt. sponsorship when they attempt to.  And again, there is no morality involved in the state limiting its marriage licenses to heterosexual pairings.  Just a simple recognizance of who is male and who is female, and a basic grasp of a fundamental concept (marriage).   

When you got your Concealed Carry Permit, were you asked whom you planned to shoot and when?  Do your local police come by to make sure you're carrying your gun?  I doubt it, but in many states, you are required to demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece.  Of course, one must meet certain standards to get a driver's license, but no one checks to make sure you are driving.  Likewise, there are requirements for a liquor license.  Is it revoked if no one ever buys a beer?

Heh - you slipped up there: "demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece."  So the state would then be justified in denying the privilege and benefits of marriage to individuals of either sex who are incapable of procreation?

And how do we know who is incapable of procreation?  Fertility tests would be costly and intrusive.  In any case, the "infertile" have often had children, especially today.  No, friend that's not a slip.  In all three cases, I mentioned that licenses are not granted to anybody who walks in.  Otherwise, why bother?  There are always standards.  And two men who want a marriage license make as much sense as a blind, vegetative quadriplegic requesting a driver's license.  The standard for a marriage license is not the touchy and private matter of fertility, it is the public fact of gender.  One is male.  One is female.  Not related.  Good to go. 

I said "family ties."  Marriage, legally, is there to clear up who belongs to what family, inheritance, custody, visitation rights, etc.  Homosexuality has nothing to do with these things.  It does not produce children.  It does not create families.

You're contradicting yourself - "I didn't say it was about children - rather, about 'family ties.' But then you want to redefine 'family ties' solely in terms of children and child-rearing. (Of course, 'marriage' does not actually deal with custody or visitation rights - court decrees do in cases of separation, divorce or non-marriage.)

And, of course, you ignore the fact that gay couples who adopt - would, and do, face all manner of 'family issues.'

It does not provide any more pressing need to visit a loved one than any other close friendship.  If these issues need to be addressed for non-marriage relationships, let them be dealt with as such, not on the basis of private sexual behavior.

Answered, still boring.

Children, custody, family, and so on and so forth.  These are things that come directly from heterosexual pairings.  Homosexuality does not produce these things.  It is not a relevant factor, hence there is no need to codify it or to give it more recognition than other types of relationships.  Marriage has existed and been recognized by law in almost all cultures since the dawn of time.  Why?  Because it matters.  It is important who is related to whom.  Homosexuality does not matter, legally, because it doesn't affect those things.  Should we be recognizing homosexual marriages so that we will feel better about their adopting children, or because they have some greater right to easier legal arrangements than those who are just good friends who live together?  I'm gonna say it again, we can address things like adoption or hospital visits or anything else without bringing marriage into it. 

You're contradicting yourself - "I didn't say it was about children - rather, about 'family ties.' But then you want to redefine 'family ties' solely in terms of children and child-rearing.

If I redefined it, then tell me how I defined it the first time.  You can't.  Of course, family is about children.  Marriage only came about because of children.  If some couples don't or can't have children, that's just happenstance.     

[Barbara]

Ok, this is a serious question I don't understand.

Why is soliticing sex in a bathroom a crime?

Having sex in a bathroom I can understand, but the soliciting part I'm not clear on.

Where else is it illegal?

People do it in bars all the time.

Is that illegal?

[mtnbkr]

Ok, this is a serious question I don't understand.
Why is soliticing sex in a bathroom a crime?
Having sex in a bathroom I can understand, but the soliciting part I'm not clear on.
Where else is it illegal?
People do it in bars all the time.
Is that illegal?

Because it's not just "hey I like you, let's go back to my place", but "let's do it right here".  It's pretty common for a particular store, mall, or other public restroom to become a major gay sex site.  Once that happens, it takes nearly constant surveillance and supervision to return it to it's previous state.  I've been to some malls where the problem was so pervasive they had to remove the doors from the stalls and put a person in the bathroom the entire time the mall was open.

A few years ago, the rest area on I66 near Manassas was a major gay sex site.  The cops did a sting there one time that netted a bunch of guys having sex in and around the site.  Not meeting and greeting, but doing the deed.  A nearby regional park got so bad families and other folks interested in the park for "normal" purposes stopped going.  It's better now, but I've seen evidence that it's still a hangout (polaroid of a deviant sex act left on the trail, guy walking the back trails with nothing but a pair of severely trimmed back jogging shorts, etc).  I rarely bump into hetero couples using public spaces for sex acts (it happens, but it's not nearly as pervasive or "in your face").

Chris

[Barbara]

Where's the line? If you're a man and I'm a woman and we bump into each other outside the restroom and I have ask you if you want to have sex, have I committed a crime?

[Manedwolf]

A few years ago, the rest area on I66 near Manassas was a major gay sex site.  The cops did a sting there one time that netted a bunch of guys having sex in and around the site.  Not meeting and greeting, but doing the deed.  A nearby regional park got so bad families and other folks interested in the park for "normal" purposes stopped going.  It's better now, but I've seen evidence that it's still a hangout (polaroid of a deviant sex act left on the trail, guy walking the back trails with nothing but a pair of severely trimmed back jogging shorts, etc).  I rarely bump into hetero couples using public spaces for sex acts (it happens, but it's not nearly as pervasive or "in your face").
Chris

Sounds like the public bathrooms along Ft. Lauderdale beach. They've been like that for a very long time...and Ft. Lauderdale's mayor, trying to make the city a more family-friendly place, just caught a whole lot of flak for suggesting a crackdown on it, got called a "bigot" and all sorts of other things... even though he simply expressed concern that it was going on even in restrooms at childrens' parks.

Mayor Naugle thrown off Broward tourism board
BY AMY SHERMAN
asherman@MiamiHerald.com
Broward County commissioners unanimously tossed Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle off a tourism board Tuesday, saying his recent comments on gays are driving away visitors.

Naugle has been talking for weeks in local and national media about his concerns about gay sex in public restrooms. His remarks have angered local and national gay leaders and, according to the county tourism agency, frightened away some straight tourists.

And this is what he'd said:

Naugle's latest battle with the gay community began a few weeks ago when he said a proposal for single-occupancy toilets at the beach would reduce gay sex in public bathrooms. Ultimately, the city abandoned the idea of buying the toilets for the beach.

Heaven forbid.

[wooderson]

Again, more leftist sophistry.  Gender is real.  It is not arbitrary.

But restricting rights and privileges based on gender (when whatever the issue is involves no negative consequences) is arbitrary.

Duh.

But when men and women live together, there are suddenly children running about, and families happening.

You did it again - children.

Should childless couples be stripped of their marriage rights after a certain time?
If they have no children, if they can have no children - how does their marriage differ from that of a same-sex couple?

So you won't dispute that Bush's victory in Iraq (in 2003) was as real as our defeat of the Japanese in 1945?  I don't want to argue about Bush here, I'm just saying that victory means something.  And marriage means something.  It doesn't just mean two people living happily together. 

Victory - and marriage - derive meaning from context.
In the context of 'beating Saddam' - Iraq was clearly a victory. Guy's dead. In the context of 'pacifying Iraq' - as Japan was pacified - it was clearly not a 'victory.'

Marriage has been polygamous, it has been used as a tool of foreign policy and business.  Marriages have taken place between small girls and old men, between people who've never seen each other before, and between those who did not consent to the union.  Marriages have been life-long, and they are often laughably short today.  But like anything else, there are qualities that are essential, and there are qualities that are accidental.

You were doing so well until that last bit: there is nothing 'essential' about marriage. As you state, it changes continually as individual societies change.

How very deep of you.  A concept is not less real than a physical object.  And when you change it too much, you change it into a new concept.  In the same way, the chair will be a stool, if you cut it down some.

(A stool is a chair...)
A concept is 'less real' than a physical object because it does not exist. It has no properties that multiple individuals can see or feel or even necessarily agree upon.

Where did I discuss my desires?

Every time you state that marriage can ONLY mean heterosexual. That's a desire - you've offered no argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything, or that it poses a threat in any way, shape or form.

You want to restrict same-sex marriage for, again, arbitrary reasons.

And as far as need goes, please explain why homosexuals "need" to see their partners in the hospital more than close, non-sexual friends do.

Why do married heterosexuals "need" to see their partners, etc.

Or why homosexual couples "need" to adopt children more than two non-sexual room-mates do.

Why do married heterosexuals "need" to adopt, etc..

If your argument is that we should strip marriage of all legal and social privilege and render everything a series of wills and contracts - great. Make marriage an issue between individuals and their religion/family/friends.

But you're not doing that, are you?

Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense

Okay - Massachusetts.

Done.

And again, there is no morality involved in the state limiting its marriage licenses to heterosexual pairings.

Of course there is - you just denied the capability of same-sex couples to 'marry.' That's a moral judgement - their desire offends your sense of right and wrong.

And how do we know who is incapable of procreation?  Fertility tests would be costly and intrusive.  In any case, the "infertile" have often had children, especially today.

And two men who want a marriage license make as much sense as a blind, vegetative quadriplegic requesting a driver's license. 

As far as the state is concerned marriage only means what we choose to define it as, legally.

You're going to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and doing this LALALALALALA deal, aren't you? If all else fails, fall back on the "BUT MARRIAGE CANNOT MEAN THAT, BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE I SAY SO."

So I'm done. Have fun.

[Manedwolf]

Quote
Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense
Okay - Massachusetts.

Done.

You're using the most dysfunctional, socialist mess of a state as an example, the place where endless taxes are taken to build failed public works projects that come apart (Big Dig tunnel leaks now far worse than thought), where the governor now wants to give illegals drivers' licenses and free state-college education, and forbid police from arresting them? Where the gun restrictions that fly in the face of the second amendment are some of the most draconian in the country? Where you can't even carry a taser (felony) or have pepper spray without a special permit (felony) but gangstas regularly shoot at each other and get back out (misdemeanor)...?

I wouldn't use MA as an example for anything except "don't do it this way".

[mtnbkr]

Where's the line?

The line is where your pursuit of sexual gratification interferes with the activities of others in a public space. 

And it's not people just meeting/greeting and going to a more appropriate location, but "regulars" setting up shop and turning a public space into their own bedroom, so to speak.

Places get a reputation as a "hook up spot", they learn security patterns, blind spots, etc.  If it were just a meet/greet scenario, nobody would care.  That already goes on all around us.  The problem is when they can't/won't go home or to a hotel and decide to do it on the spot.  Even better if "straights" walk in and are "shocked".

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

Where did I discuss my desires?

Every time you state that marriage can ONLY mean heterosexual. That's a desire - you've offered no argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything, or that it poses a threat in any way, shape or form.

You want to restrict same-sex marriage for, again, arbitrary reasons.

Well, now you're just making things up.  I am sorry if stating well-known definitions sounds like desire to you.  You have yet to show any evidence of my motives.  Nor did I say anything about restricting same-sex marriage.  Let's recognize who is demanding something here.  I'm not demanding restriction of those who would like to pretend to be married.  Let them walk down the aisle and play house together.  It is your side that demands that obvious non-marriages be recognized as marriages.  There's nothing arbitrary about recognizing that marriage is heterosexual, requiring at least one of each gender.  Again, not because I want it, but because of reality. 

you've offered no argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything, or that it poses a threat in any way, shape or form.

That's probably because I'm not basing my argument thereon.  You would know that if you read my posts.  But it's very curious to argue that the govt. must do something, just because it won't harm anybody else. 

But when men and women live together, there are suddenly children running about, and families happening.

You did it again - children.

Should childless couples be stripped of their marriage rights after a certain time?
If they have no children, if they can have no children - how does their marriage differ from that of a same-sex couple?

I already answered that one. 

And how do we know who is incapable of procreation?  Fertility tests would be costly and intrusive.  In any case, the "infertile" have often had children, especially today.

  While it's obvious that homosexual pairs don't produce children, there's no such certainty when it comes to heterosexuals.  To use your standard, it won't hurt anyone if some childless people are married.  And it won't hurt anyone if two women can't get a license for their "marriage" either. 

A concept is 'less real' than a physical object because it does not exist.

  Your other comments on essential qualities, victory, etc, were anti-reason and self-contradictory.  But this one takes the cake.  If marriage did not exist, we would not be discussing it.  Existence does not require physicality. 

And as far as need goes, please explain why homosexuals "need" to see their partners in the hospital more than close, non-sexual friends do.

Why do married heterosexuals "need" to see their partners, etc.

Or why homosexual couples "need" to adopt children more than two non-sexual room-mates do.

Why do married heterosexuals "need" to adopt, etc..

If your argument is that we should strip marriage of all legal and social privilege and render everything a series of wills and contracts - great. Make marriage an issue between individuals and their religion/family/friends.

But you're not doing that, are you?

Of course not.  Was I supposed to be?  Yeah, it could be argued that no one really needs to see anyone else while in the hospital.  I thought ICU's had such rules to keep down on the number of people who visited.  If you want to expand it beyond the reach of immediate family, make the case.  But don't tell me we have to have homosexual marriage just so Daniel can go and see his boyfriend.  There's no reason to believe that the sexual relationship between two men merits more attention than other close relationships.

Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense

Okay - Massachusetts.

Done.

  You're not being serious, I hope.  We can dress up anything with a government stamp of approval.  Doesn't make it real. 

And again, there is no morality involved in the state limiting its marriage licenses to heterosexual pairings.

Of course there is - you just denied the capability of same-sex couples to 'marry.' That's a moral judgement - their desire offends your sense of right and wrong.

Read what you just said.  Capability is a moral quality?  Sheesh. 

And two men who want a marriage license make as much sense as a blind, vegetative quadriplegic requesting a driver's license.

As far as the state is concerned marriage only means what we choose to define it as, legally.

And why would we define marriage as something it clearly is not?  Why?  You cannot answer that. 

You're going to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and doing this LALALALALALA deal, aren't you? If all else fails, fall back on the "BUT MARRIAGE CANNOT MEAN THAT, BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE I SAY SO."

I'm sorry that I've been sticking to the facts, here.  Reality hurts sometimes, doesn't it?