Its hilarious that in some threads the New Testament creates a new covenant and the Old Testament rules dont apply (such as slavery, stoning people for adultery and working on the Sabbath) yet when gay marriage comes up people bounce around happy to quote Leviticus as the unquestionable word of god and His intent that must be obeyed.

Oh and "hilarious" can be swapped for "disgusting" depending on my mood.

I prefer disgusting every single day, regardless of my mood.

As a legal matter, Aaron, the case is distinguishable.

But I think you missed my point. The ARGUMENT form you made is basically not sound. Saying that someone who isn't attracted to women can marry one is not treating him equally to someone who is attracted to women. It's actually saying the opposite-- he can marry the person he wanrs and you can't.

Now you can argue the discrimination is justified. For instance, a pedophile doesn't have the same right to marry a 13 year old, because there are compelling reasons to deny him that choice.

But make no mistake, saying to gays "you can only marry people you don't want to while straights can marry people they do want" is diacriminatory. It's also insulting to gays.

Like I said, only queers have a problem with gays.

What I mean by that is you have to be extremely self-centered (bigoted) not to give others freedom and space. Every living, breathing, law abiding citizen of this planet deserves to be treated equally.

I don't understand this sentence. To be "distinguishable" in a legal sense means what?

There's a more fundamental question at the heart of the matter, which is the nature of marriage (as either a social or legal contract). Is marriage fundamentally about "attraction" or is there something else to it? (See "arranged marriage".)

The discrimination in the cited case is one of insignificant biological distinction. If I ask a doctor for a hysterectomy, I cannot proceed to sue him based on gender discrimination. The procedure is gender specific, and I do not qualify. If marriage is a contract that is fundamentally gender specific, then the same concept should apply.

(FWIW - I'm actually neutral on the issue of gay marriage. I'm not particularly settled on its role as a legal contract, which is fundamentally what the political debate is about. I don't think I would care if the government issued no marriage licences at all.)

are people who are opposed to gay marriage opposed to a man marrying a man who surgically converts into a woman (making him/her no different, from a breeding perspective, than in infertile or post-menopausal woman)?

This isn't possible.
People with penises and severe infertility are already no different from a breeding perspective than an infertile or post menopausal woman. Not sure why a few snips & inversions and a pill regimen changes the analysis.

So wait, if my balls stopped working I am not allowed to marry women anymore because I can't personally get them preggers? No adoption allowed or anything?

Whoever said marriage could only happen if the people involved could breed together? The arguments against gay marriage are not entirely based on the fact that they're mutually sterile.

It depends on norms as much as anything else. Which is why I can't marry a cow, or two women, or a 17 year old. None of these things involve anti-gay bigotry, and two of them don't involve sterility, but I'm not allowed to do them. There are good, though definitely arguable, reasons why these things are viewed as less desirable than male-female marriage by communities around the world, and therefore usually lacking state sanction. There are also good, though definitely arguable, reasons why gay marriage is viewed as less desirable than male-female marriage by communities around the world, and therefore usually lacking state sanction.

Right. He just can't marry somebody to whom he is sexually attracted.

Is marriage a legal contract of sexual attraction?

Cows and 17 year olds cannot consent, and my only problem with marrying two women is that those situations are often forced upon the women, or they are very strongly pushed by the community. I have no problem with a man marrying two women, or a woman marrying two men, as long as everybody is doing it entirely voluntarily.

You realise you are saying "you cant do X because you cant do X", right?

In the UK you CAN marry a 17 year old. Im pretty sure in Japan you can marry a cow. In several countries you can marry two women. And you can get married to the same sex in Holland i believe.

So awesome, if your argument as to why gay marriage is wrong is because its not legal then lets change the law and you have no problem with it anymore. Im not sure im in favour of men marrying cows, but i see no moral objection with a man marrying a man given they can both legally consent and they cause no harm to anyone else.

Nope, but that's a huge reason why a lot of people do get married.

Its a moral question of right and wrong to me.

Yeah its pretty sad. I thought all that matters in the NT is you love God and your neighbor. I guess that only comes into play when its necessary for a particular argument.

Okay. Then I would classify it as a human rights issue and not a civil rights issue. It kind of brings me back around to the original question:

I think moral questions should be allowed to be voted on.

Is it morally tolerable for immoral positions to win the vote?

Edit: And for that decision to ultimately carry the day (ie, become implemented)?

You can't marry a cow because it is not a consenting adult. This is common religious rhetoric to try and lump homosexuality in with bestiality. And I don't know where you live but I can definitely legally marry a 17 year old here. What does that prove though, besides the fact that it is legal?

What "communities around the world" think is not sufficient. Do you have anything else?

It proves that "consenting adult" is not the standard that is actually applied to the question of marriage.

If its not i would have to be for getting rid of democracy and anoint myself as king enforcing all my moral views.

There are all kinds of laws i see as immoral. Its an inevitable part of democracy.

I gave examples and can give more. Wow.

Also madnak still hasn't said what his non-bigoted reasons are for being anti-, only that it is possible some might exist theoretically? Has anyone given a reason yet that is not a refuted talking point from the National Organization for Marriage?

Interesting. So democracy sits in some sort of "higher" moral position in your view.

I can be anti-gay marriage in the sense of being against the formation of the legal contract of marriage.