As I implied above, I think her argument has some merit, but I also see why social conservatives have serious heartburn over the government seeming to take over the social (as opposed to legal) definition of what a marriage ought to be. It’s always dangerous for our government to get into the social engineering business (governments historically render disasterous results when they venture into this field), especially since the governed have not consented for it to do so. Remember, the government that forces people “to confront, and perhaps rethink, their prejudices” today can force them, at the point of a gun, to rethink their values tomorrow. And I mean your values too.

Do you agree?

In fact, the person who gave me the information I shared with you is gay, is very committed to having the state recognize gay marriages, and has been very frank with me about what she sees as the long-term social benefits for gays of state recognition. In her view there is still a lot of hostility towards gays in our society, and having the state legally recognize gay marriage on a par with traditional marriage would go a long way towards forcing people to confront, and perhaps rethink, their prejudices.

Frankly, her argument beats yours all to hell. It has some weaknesses, but at least it’s both plausible and coherent.

As seems overwhelmingly likely, the vast majority of gay people are born with their gender orientation (Ted Haggard’s therapeutic conversion notwithstanding). Just like you were, Jim. Do you wonder about the social acceptability of people born with with red hair, or blue eyes, or brown skin?

The argument is still over what the state should be bound to recognize. When establishing special status for any entity, the state has the responsibility to pick and choose what the criteria for that status ought to be. That’s why the state sets criteria for establishing differing tax brackets, or eligibility for food stamps, or determining who can get a driver’s license, or be drafted (or exempt from the draft), or take money out of an IRA without a penalty. The state ‘discriminates’ like this all the time, and for good reason.

If the state is going to be in the marraige business at all I see no reason why it shouldn’t select the criteria for defining marriage that best serve the objective interests of society. Perhaps one of these days advocates for homosexuals will advance a coherent argument for establishing special status for their particular couplings.

Let’s look at interracial marriage. It wasn’t until 1967 that the US Supreme Court unanimously declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional, thereby ending race-based restrictions on marriage. Of course these “rights” always existed, it just took an appallingly long time for them to be recognized legally.

People who opposed interracial marriage in the 1960′s were prejudiced. People who oppose gay marriage today have similarly prejudiced views.

By the way, the Supreme Court in 1967 did not ask for anyone to “provide evidence” that interracial marriage would provide “benefits to society.”

Besides, (not that they should have to justify their existence to anyone else) how would gay couples “prove their benefit to society” when people like you would deny them that opportunity? Frankly, the thought of having to “prove” anything is insulting.

Well, you’re almost there. History has proven that stable long-term heterosexual relationships do make for better and more prosperous citizens. Even more important, they provide the basis for the care and upbringing of children. That’s a benefit that society is wise to recognize and reward.

There is not one iota of evidence that providing the same level of government recognition to homosexual couples would bring similar benefits to society (point it out to me if it exists). The idea strikes me as something people on the left accept out of faith, rather than reason, sort of like your knee-jerk assertion that anyone who questions the wisdom of legally recognizing homosexual marriages must be prejudiced.