Powerless? Are you kidding me? Gays are anything but powerless. In fact, their economic, political and social clout far exceeds their numbers especially in terms of their standard of living.

Annual household income for gays and lesbians for 2007-2008 is $80,000. (communitymarketinginc.com)

Compare the household income of gays and lesbians of $80,000 a year to the median income of blacks, Asians and Hispanics. U.S. Census statistics for 2008 (published on September 11, 2009) show that the median income for blacks was $34,218; for Hispanics it was $37,913; for Asians it was $65,637. Median income for non-Hispanic white households was $55,530.

This doesn't sound like a powerless group to me. Stop the lies and start learning the truth!

Speculation about "berdache" is far from conclusive evidence.

Saying that Nero "appears" to do something is also manifestly speculative and does not accord with the law of marriage during his lifetime in ancient Rome.

Dig a little below the surface and you'll discover that there is no prededence for SSM -- as marriage -- in the prehistory you have cited. I take it you depend on these secondary, or rather teritiary, sources rather than your own familiarity with the primary sources.

Anyway, see the other discussion thread if you wish to pursue the topic further.

Cheerio,
Chairm

From Google search "Though perhaps not the originator of the practice, the emperor Nero appears to have been the first Roman emperor to marry a male."

1. Given the assumption that this country was founded on the separation of church and state, and knowing that our forefathers fled their native lands due to religious persecution (that is, the forcible imposition of the theological and “moral” beliefs of the majority onto that of a minority group) we have the understanding that this separation is critical to all citizens; be they of a ideological majority or minority. That being said; how can religion be used as an arguing point against equal rights for all Americans?
--
Our anscestors were Puritans. They were seeking religious freedom, yes. What gay rights legislation DOES is take away religious freedoms. When churches have to stop facilitating adoption (as in Massachusetts) or serving the poor (as is the threat to the Catholic Church in D.C.) because they are accused of "bigotry" for not changing their long-standing Biblical viewpoints, they are not able to fully practice their religion, that is discrimination. Freedom of religion, as you state, is a founding principle of this country.
The option to marry is given to two consenting adults: a man and a woman, to create an environment that is favorable to children.

2. A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults. What those two adults make of their marriage together is up to them, and the government has no say in it. Prohibiting someone from entering into any other legal contract based on their gender would be considered discrimination. How is this legal contract any different?
--
Would you make the same argument if those "two consenting adults" were first cousins? Brother and sister? Two sisters? Do you have any argument against polyamourous unions? If you do, why? Race and gender are 100% genetically determined, unchangable and not based on behavior. More here:
http://robgagnon.net/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy1.htm
3. We are making argument for equal marriage rights without bias to gender discrimination or sexual orientation; civil marriage equality only. This argument is completely separate from any of the other topics which are all too often introduced under this debate. We are not fighting for the rights to have a family, to raise children, to teach our children loving family values, and most importantly to teach them never to hate; we already have those rights, and they can never be taken away.
--
States do not give everyone the opportunity to marry. If that marriage is detrimental to the people involved or society at large, it is denied. For another non-religious argument, go here:
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

4. Conclusion: Now that we have removed the question of religion, identified that civil marriage is, at it’s foundation a civil contract, and have removed all of the distracting side arguments; what is the foundation for denying me the same rights that you enjoy?
--
What actual rights do you not have?

The moderators will guide the discussion if commenters go "off-topic." The topic of the original blogpost is an indicator; but moderators continue to accept sub-topics for discussion in comment sections.

You, Caleb, as a commenter do not moderate the discussions here. Neither do I.

I think you understand that, right? If you would prefer to have a discussion moderated by yourself, please point to a different blogsite and invite other readers to follow you there.

* * *

This ground you commented on has been well-covered in previous discussions, by the way, so you might drop the pretense of rising above it.

Instead, you might do better by plainly stating the actual disagreement. Those on the other side of the disagreement can then either confirm your understanding of that disagreement, correct your statement, or clarify the bits where misunderstandings may have arisen.

In that spirit, I'll respond.

* * *

1. "how can religion be used as an arguing point against equal rights for all Americans?"

You mischaracterized the disagreement. Please restate without assuming the conclusion in your question.

2a. "A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults."

Marriage is not a license. The license is not marriage. Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution of civil society. It is not the creature of the government. Government, on behalf of society, regulates the parameters of marriage. It does not create and own the social institution that it recognizes and shows preference for. Thus, marriage has a core, essentials, that distinguish it as a unique type of relationship different from the rest of the range of relationships and arrangements.

Not all nonmarriage relationships and arrangements are sexualized; most are not. Most are not one-sexed, but rather two-sexed; even at that most are also sex-neutral, unlike marriage which is not sex-neutral.

In the limited sense of "civil contract" the conjugal relationship is the consensual union of a husband and wife. It is not sex-neutral as per the sexual basis of consummation and provisions for annulment and adultery-divorce; this sexual basis is one and the same as that for the marital presumption of paternity. The consent of the husband and wife entails all of this, as a matter of "civil contract". None of this applies to the one-sexed arrangment -- regardless of sexual orientation of the individuals.

There appears to be no sexual basis for what activists refer to as SSM. Not in the form of a civil contract, anyway, in which the participants are required by law to engage in same-sex sexual behavior of one kind (i.e. all-male) and of a different kind (i.e. all-female). As per SSMers, if there is no legal requirement for something, then, it is not essential to SSM. Indeed, same-sex sexual behavior can and does occur outside of such civil contracts and such arrangements; so as per SSMers, it cannot be essential the SSM, as a civil contract or otherwise.

* * *

2b. "Prohibiting someone from entering into any other legal contract based on their gender would be considered discrimination. How is this legal contract any different?"

See 2a. Marriage is the "civil contract" of husband and wife. It is not merely a contract of consenting adults. There are plenty of examples of contracts which do not bestow marital status on the signatories.

If you see SSM as merely a civil contract, then, you need no license to form such an agreement, much less a license to marry. It is not clear what prohibition you are talking about. Be more explicit.

Note that not all discrimination is unjust. Society discriminates between marriage and non-marriage. Your emphasis that SSM is just a civil contract indicates that your position is that marriage must be reduced to whatever SSM is and must become sex-neutral in all ways. That would be unjust discrimination against the core meaning of marriage in our society.

On the other hand, if you believe that society might justly discriminate between SSM and non-marriage, please explain the principled basis for that proposition. Surely it is not some concern for sex-discrimination. Right?

* * *

3. "We are not fighting for the rights to have a family, to raise children, to teach our children loving family values, and most importantly to teach them never to hate; we already have those rights, and they can never be taken away."

See 2a and 2b. You are barking up the wrong tree.

4. "what is the foundation for denying me the same rights that you enjoy?"

On what principled basis do you claim to not enjoy the same rights as others?

If you are comparing some subset of the one-sexed kind of arrangement (which is itself a subset of the nonmarriage category), please plainly state the principled basis for your seeking to differentiate that subset from the rest of the arrangements that are ineligible to marry.

1. Given the assumption that this country was founded on the separation of church and state, and knowing that our forefathers fled their native lands due to religious persecution (that is, the forcible imposition of the theological and “moral” beliefs of the majority onto that of a minority group) we have the understanding that this separation is critical to all citizens; be they of a ideological majority or minority. That being said; how can religion be used as an arguing point against equal rights for all Americans?
2. A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults. What those two adults make of their marriage together is up to them, and the government has no say in it. Prohibiting someone from entering into any other legal contract based on their gender would be considered discrimination. How is this legal contract any different?
3. We are making argument for equal marriage rights without bias to gender discrimination or sexual orientation; civil marriage equality only. This argument is completely separate from any of the other topics which are all too often introduced under this debate. We are not fighting for the rights to have a family, to raise children, to teach our children loving family values, and most importantly to teach them never to hate; we already have those rights, and they can never be taken away.
4. Conclusion: Now that we have removed the question of religion, identified that civil marriage is, at it’s foundation a civil contract, and have removed all of the distracting side arguments; what is the foundation for denying me the same rights that you enjoy?

Remember; please try to stay on topic. If you would like to pose questions in retort, please do so after responding to my statements in a separate comment and I, for one, would be glad to respond. Let’s end this circular argument once and for all, shall we?

The defense of marriage is robust and has withstood the supposed "logic tests" that SSMers have thrown at it.

Meanwhile, SSM argumentation has failed to pass its own puported "logist tests". It is weak, frivolous, circular, and intellectually dishonest. SSMers have demonstrated this over and over again.

* * *

If, as the you asserted, you have discovered fifty different definitions, then, you will have no trouble listing each of these different definitions. We can then assess the siginificance of whatever variables, if any, you might choose to emphasize.

Logically, if you cannot produce the list of fifty different definitions, with differences that are highly significant to the actual disagreement about SSM, then, your strut will have tripped you up.

Besides, SSMers demand one definition for all fifty states.

* * *

Your remarks about "mixed orientation marriages" undoes the complaint that the marriage law bars people due to their gayness or lesbianism. The marriage law is neutral regarding orientation and regarding identity politics. Likewise the marital presumption of paternity is neutral on those things. Your concession is undisputed.

Yet you emphasized gayness and lesbianism in the rest of your comment. You must be arguing with yourself.

* * *

Marriage is not sex-neutral. This social institution unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. The lines drawn around marriage, for example those for ineligibility, are based on significant societal concerns regarding the integrity of this core meaning.

Abolishing that core at the stroke of a pen may be what SSMers wistfully demand, but that would be a grave injustice to children, parents, and all of society -- visited upon this generation and passed on to the future generations.

Its simplicity does not rehabilitate the profound flaws of this demand for the SSM-merger.

For example, contary to your gaycentric remarks, the vulnerable families of the nonmarriage category are not defined by gayness. Indeed, they exist even you wish to pretend they are invisible. They are not going away.

Sad American, it is not hard to see why you are so sad if your logic skills are thus lacking. Perhaps you'd be happier if you looked at issues with a wide angle lens. Check out the facts on the issue and then make a principled argument for why you think there is nothing harmful about ssm. Using "hate" as a bookmark where you intended to put a real argument doesn't really cut it.

Frank, did you mean to say "WOW it's unbelievable how many people disagree with me in here!"