If the only thing gay couples want is the government to recognize their co-habitation as the same as that of married heterosexual couples then I say let them have it. Only the government should regard such unions, whether gay or not, as a form of partnership. Marriage should belong solely to the realm of the church, because this is where it gets its meaning. Apart from the blessing of God and the identification with Christ and His church, there is no marriage.

Fair enough. I was over-hasty. My point however was, if you consider what you demand, to be "moral and right" you should also have some idea of what the ends of what you demand is.

Jason, you need to watch your tone. You're putting words in people's mouths and attributing motives without knowledge of the facts.

Rebellion is an inherantly destructive activity whether done by political activism or by violence. In that one aspect, protest and political theater is no different from war: without an objective it is narcissistic. If you persist in the position you are taking and will not say when is enough, I must conclude that you are motivatated by a selfish desire for the thrill of conflict at whatever harm you do to others. If it is a "strugle for rights" as you claim there must theoretically be a point at which it is accomplished. Otherwise your motives are comparable to those of a serial killer, and I see no reason why any should take you seriously.

Ben, the reason you should say whether you would be willing to give anything up, is that otherwise, I have no motive to change my opinion. It doesn't matter one whit whether you think it "moral and right" if I don't . If you wish respectability you must act respectable. And part of living in a society is knowing how to negotiate. If you will not do so, why should anyone else do the same?

Frankly I am more or less indifferent to how people choose to sin. I am not indifferent to the fact that gays insist on making themselves a social and political nuisance. As you obviously intend to keep doing so, frankly I have no motive to change my opinion.

Furthermore, it is pretty obviously NOT about legal priveleges. If it were you would be satisfied to negotiate on that basis. What you want is the actual word marriage. In other words what you want is to force others to respect you. In other words you frankly wish to be a thought police.

To answer your question, yes, legal priviledges are the issue, at least in the article referenced. The article makes the claim that allowing homosexuals more freedom will take it away from us heterosexuals.

Why should I give up anything to support gay marriage? I support it because I believe it's moral and right, and I think others should support it for the same reason.

Ben, if you really want gay marriage, may I ask what you would hypothetically be willing to give up for me to hypothetically support it? Activism is like an addiction; having a cause to fight for is attractive for it to be easy to to trust someone to stop. More prosaically, bureaucrats in special-intrests depend for their jobs on finding new grievances. If you wish to not be in perpetual war with society then sooner or later you have to come to a point where you are going to say, "This is what I am satisfied with and this is what I am willing to pay to get it."

Are legal priveleges the issue Ben?

Hmm.. Well, if the article is right, and same-sex marriages lead to *less* liberty because the government is now involved in their marriages.. surely us heterosexuals should also be eager to get the government out of our marriages, too, to gain more liberty for ourselves. Who's with me? Let's get rid of Social Security benefits for spouses, joint insurance policies, immigration and residency for foreign-citizenned spouses, and the countless other legal benefits that come with being married.

The problem is one of definition. Does individual mean "individual in the eyes of the law". Or "individual in the sense of being a unique creation" or simply "individual in the sense of being alone and indifferent to other people".

Natan Sharansky once noted that when he was being tortured by the KGB the fellow-prisoners he trusted most were those who felt they had people on the outside that they had to live up to. In that sense interdependance is a protection against the state.

My hometown's newspaper declares itself to be "liberatarian" where it has advocated individualism for decades.--The population of this small city (and the surrounding region) is shrinking, and has been for decades. It is in economic blight. It has high crime and drug abuse. Buildings in this city and surrounding towns are literally crumbling.--I believe this decline is primarily due to the incessant strife and constant bickering...largely a result of individualism gone wild.

Didn't I once make that point that hyper-individualism means lack of protection? Furthermore, other people help make you what you are. Husband, wife, brother, sister, Yankee, Philly, Tidewater, and Redneck; many of these tell little about you. But these categories will usually not be replaced in other peoples minds by a "person" and likly will not add to one's own understanding of himself in their absence. "Nameless member of milling crowd", or "number on an ID card", will as like as not be the "label" that is substituted.

I think part of the problem is people expecting the State to meet all their needs. I want -> State gives. We're so immature compared to previous generations... but, at least we can "dialogue" (Pfff).

This quote stood out to me as largely true:
"…We have come round, that is, to the de-sacralization of the church and the re-sacralization of the state, which
is once again taking a tyrannical turn."