Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

Better still…

Why don’t you write out a definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples but excludes all other relationships (adult siblings, adult children and their parents, lifelong friends, polyamorous relationships, grandparent and grandchild) on non-arbitrary grounds?

Thanks but I’m radically under-qualified to start writing up definitions of legal arrangements like marriage. I’ll happily leave that to the lawmakers.

… The state has no reason to be involved.

And yet I have already explained why the state has an interest in marriage of its citizens which is not related to children.

A third point is that if ineffectual sexual relationships ought to be included in the definition of marriage …

I’m afraid it already is, there is nothing in law which states that infertile people may not marry.

That is the interest that the state rightfully should have in regulating the capacity to create new life to ensure this power is not abused.

Strange, are you really under the impression that the purpose of marriage is to allow governments to “regulate the capacity to create new life”.

Homosexual couples lack any power to create life so there is no fundamental reason for including them in regulatory processes.

What regulatory process? Has someone introduced regulation of sex while I’ve not been looking?

The basis of law and reason is to treat like things alike and clearly impotent homosexual relationships are relevantly different than fecund heterosexual relationships and should be distinguished as such under the law by definition.

And yet you do not appear to be advocating making it illegal for infertile people to get married. Even though they are no more capable of having children than homosexual couples.

Why not?

 

[stewstew03]

…
What regulatory process? Has someone introduced regulation of sex…?

There are many regulations on sexual behavior - some will be found in the penal code, some in the state family code.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**One more time and I report both of you, is that crystal clear?

You bring your Church into disrepute with this behavior. If you can’t argue your point then please leave the thread. **

The charge that your arguments are silent, therefore suggesting they are intellectually impotent, brings you, not our Church, into disrepute.

Stop with the threats or you will be reported.

 

[tonyrey]

General Guidelines

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

One more time and I report both of you, is that crystal clear?

You bring your Church into disrepute with this behavior. If you can’t argue your point then please leave the thread.

You are forgetting that **you **frequently make jocular remarks at the expense of others, e.g.

No doubt your argument sounds great in your head but it needs work when written down, currently it’s real easy for your opponents to drive several coaches and horses through it.

You can either spend your time defending confusing arguments and lose the war, or come up with less confusing arguments and win, up to you.

It’s very pleasing that you have no arguments left and have been reduced to trying to poison the well.

When all else fails, start a conspiracy theory.

It is significant that you regarded “intellectual impotence” as humorous until another person added a comment. I can sympathise because you have been outnumbered on this thread and I have been in a similar position several times. That’s when we begin to feel the pressure…

 

[CandideWest]

This won’t do. In a secular context, appeals to divine revelation won’t fly, but to outlaw “anything which is based [on] religious beliefs” is asking too much and for two reasons.

First, opposition to murder is for most people a religious belief.

Disagree, it is a belief that religious and non-religious people share. We don’t find that people who cease to be religious suddenly go “hmmm, suddenly i don’t find anything wrong with murder”. Even “enlightened self interest” gets you to that one with almost no effort.

Second, secularists who set things up this way never play by the same rules they expect religious people to play by. For example, the idea that men and women are equal (-which I accept; I’m using this as an example) is held by most. Secularists do not object to this because they regard it as a secular truth .But it isn’t secular, it’s just true.

Yes, secular and religious don’t come into it, it’s just true and the secular arguments that people put forwards for equality were things like preventing women suffering due to being treated as inferior to men.

When secularists say that heterosexual and homosexuals are equivalent, they are saying the BELIEVE this but not that any science has demonstrated it. (What science could? It’s not a scientific claim.) They think that because this is a secular claim it must be accepted by all OR rejected on secular grounds; however, it is not HELD on secular grounds. It is a belief, plain and simple, one might say a secularist’s article of faith. But it is nowhere substantiated.

You seem to have missed the point slightly here. This thread is not about putting forwards secular arguments that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal, or that they are not. It is about secular arguments against gay marriage. (read the OP, that is specifically what the OP was asking for).

So I suppose you could go only a relatively small amount off topic ask for secular arguments in favour of gay marriage. If you do that you may get some responses to help you out (probably things like preventing homosexuals suffering due to being treated as inferior to heterosexuals). But you aren’t really helping the OP there.

 

[josh987654321]

The so-called natural law is just one of many systems of ethics. It uses a subjectively chosen catalog of goods. If “procreation” is subjectively included in the catalog, you reach your conclusion. Don’t include it, or use any other system of ethics, and you won’t reach your conclusion. That’s a bit of a problem for opponents of gay marriage.

I can easily remove procreation from it, because it is still sexual activity targeted towards procreation. It’s more about “what parts fit where” and thus I come to the exact same conclusion every time. Why do you draw a different conclusion?

Why do you think marriage promotes and encourages sexual acts?

You think it doesn’t?

Like I said before, it’s how they consummate the union, marriage is a very close union between a man and a woman that supports and encourages sexual activity between the two, how could it not do that?

If denying marriage to homosexuals will make them more sexually responsible, stopping heterosexuals getting married will make them more sexually responsible too. Err…

Thats not what I am saying.

It’s all about societies perception of such a union. Like I have said before, I certainly wont throw stones if out of weakness homosexuals give into disordered and immoral sexual behaviour, however I will be in opposition when people try to claim that such sexual behaviour is no longer disordered or immoral, which is what they are trying to do with same sex marriage.

I think the huge number of threads about this on CAF is an indication that the majority is increasingly in favor. It wouldn’t be an issue otherwise.

I think alot of people are in favor of same sex marriage, all because it’s in a misguided attempt to help, they are condoning and encouraging disordered and immoral sexual behaviours, not everything we desire is good for us, just because we desire something doesn’t make it right.

Are you going to set up a sex police or something to authorize who can have sex? People decide for themselves whether they are sexually compatible, and people are not made of Lego bricks.

Of course I wouldn’t set up a sex police or anything, I wouldn’t condone or support such sexual immorality with same sex marriage though.

“people decide for themselves whether they are sexually compatible”

I am amazed at that comment, maybe you should rethink that comment. Would a human and an animal be sexually compatible? I am not relating beastiality to homosexuality, I am trying to point out to you that people cannot just “decide” whether they are sexually compatible, you either ‘are’ sexually capable or you are ‘not’.

We’ve been round this, and I think the remainder of your post, let’s try to avoid repetition.

Exactly, I don’t get why you don’t understand, my view is that you have to understand what we are saying, the question is why are you choosing to ignore it?

Why do you percieve the sexual activity of two men or two women as a societal norm and something to be embraced and encouraged by society?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I think when discussing same sex marriage we need to talk about love and the word love in english terms is far to vague.

The whole issue is to do with “love of eros” not any other kind of love. Homosexuals can love one another as long as it is not love of eros.

Love of eros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

This kind of love is absolutly a part of marriage, it is this kind of love that is disordered and immoral when it comes to homosexual unions because it has everything to do with the sexual acts of homosexuality.

It all comes down to how they consummate the marriage, heterosexuals can consummate their marriage in a moral and ordered way targeted towards procreation however homosexuals are physically incapable of consummating their union in a moral and ordered way, thus why it is not a marriage.

Do you really want to encourage homosexuals to act sexually Immoral and disorderly in trying to consummate their so called marriage?

You might feel as if we are denying homosexuals the unity of marriage, but the fact is that they cannot have the same unity that a male and female does, as the physical compatability just isn’t there, they simply do not share the same “love of eros” for a marriage.

Does love of eros no longer matter when it comes to marriage? and if so, than marriage should be for any kind of loving relationship. I mean can friends get married who do not have a love of eros, who are simply friends? if love of eros no longer matters when it comes to marriage than really any kind of loving union should be recognised as a marriage.

Definitions of Love -

**Love of Agape **- means “love,” which means “I love you.” In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of “true love” rather than the attraction suggested by “eros.” It can also be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God.

Love of Eros - is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Love of Philia - means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity.

Love of Storge - means “affection” in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

Now which one(s) of these “loves” would be required for marriage? I would most definatly include “Love of eros.” it would be naive to exclude such love from marriage.

Our primary concern is the love of eros between homosexuals that is a part of marriage and to support same sex marriage means to support and encourage love of eros between homosexuals, which has everything to do with the sexual acts of homosexuality and thus why same sex marriage is just so very wrong.

We are not in opposition to any other kind of love between homosexuals, it is just the “love of eros” and this love of eros is a part of marriage, it is not the only love in marriage but it is a part of the love required for marriage, therefore same sex marriage means to support and encourage the “love of eros” between homosexuals, which is wrong.

Thank you for reading
Josh
inocente;10716023:

Do you really think love is more complicated than quantum theory?

Two people love each other. End of story.

I think love is more than just the word ‘love.’ You and I can both ‘love’ someone in our life but share a very different kind of love for the person. The word love for this reason has been grossly misused and abused and if you think there isn’t more to love than just one understanding than you are gravely mistaken.

Two people love each other in many different ways, I love my friends and family, I try always to love my neighbour, do you think that this kind of love is all the same? of course not.

This is how people end up in all kinds of trouble especially those who have a “love of eros” yet think love is all the same and therefore lump them all together and than can’t understand why such love doesn’t exist in their relationship.

In the Gospels, Christ sums it up by “love God and love your neighbour” but this is obviously not just any kind of love, and this kind of love has to be learnt and thus why it is explained on many occassions through christs teachings. This is “love of agape” and no other. It is not just “Love.” You are gravely mistaken to have such a vague understanding of love.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[markeverett49]

Disagree, it is a belief that religious and non-religious people share. We don’t find that people who cease to be religious suddenly go “hmmm, suddenly i don’t find anything wrong with murder”. Even “enlightened self interest” gets you to that one with almost no effort.

Well, that homosexual acts are repugnant is a belief that religious and non-religious people have shared through much of human history. But back to what you said, “it is a belief that religious and non-religious people share”----what is your term for a belief held by the religious and the secular?

Several arguments made earlier in this thread were dismissed by a vocal member as “not secular” because some religious people held them. But as we see here with murder, a belief may be held by secular and religious people. As is the belief that there is something fundamentally different about a relationship that produces children who will need adult supervision for a long time and those relationships that are barren by design. (It is not that homosexual persons are infertile but all homosexual acts are.)

It is odd to me—as an older fellow—that so much of what is said about homsexual persons and relationships today is at odds with what I heard from homosexual friends decades ago. (And for that matter, many homosexual people dislike what they see as the “homogenization” of homosexual life; certainly, gay writers of previous centuries were not claiming to want to live like heterosexual couples only society wouldn’t let them; it was more often the other way around: domesticity is death and being as UN-like those people as possible was the goal of many. Those colorful voices are often muted now in favor of a more, um, “corporate” view of what homosexual persons are and how they wish to live.) Actually, many heterosexual people condemned marriage in the '70s and '80s as unworkable, outmoded, oppressive, unfit for an intelligent women, and now many of these same people are in favor of same-sex marriage because marriage will be “good for” homosexual persons.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I have seen that the answer to the OP’s question is that the secular argument against gay marriage goes like this:

Marriage is not a right it is a responsibility.

Marriage is not a religious institution but instead one that has evolved over time.

The (secular) purpose of marriage has been historically to give a contract to a woman that as she has children, her spouse will provide for her.

Marriage is (historically) a contract that a man signs to give the woman faith that her children will be cared for.

Marriage is the giving up of rights (to do what ever you want) in favor of responsibility on the man’s part to provide for the children.

It has been an evolutionary process as we concede to the rights of children.

Gay civil union is fine. Gay people should have the right to legal benefits as financial co-dependents and have the same rights to legal benefits such as wills, medical benefits, etc.

But to call their union a marriage is a word that we choose to reserve for those who have the additional responsibility for the creation of children.

And, as most gay couples admit, their intent as a couple is not to create children.

Not actually controversial at all. I think that the media just likes to stir folks up regarding ‘rights’.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Homosexual relationships are statistically MORE prone to sexually transmitted diseases, infidelity and domestic, partner-on-partner violence…

These are social pathologies in and of themselves but they ALSO generate a feedback loop which then creates MORE social dysfunction.
Eg. Clinical depression, alcohol abuse, self-harm, suicide, custody disputes over adopted children of same sex “marriages”, etc. etc.

Now, comes the thin-edge-of-the-wedge, legal turmoil related to moving a line in the sand where family law is concerned. We saw what happened - for better or for worse - when the marriage law was changed to implement (the feminist concept of) no fault divorce in the 70’s. It was supposed to make divorce easier. And it did – FOR MEN!
Single parent household stats exploded and women (on welfare) were left holding the baby while lawyers made a ‘motza’ $$$ litigating custody disputes, child maintenance, alimony, paternity…

Any wonder children of these broken marriages who saw the former wealth of their estranged parents “redistributed” to the judges, lawyers, police, social workers, child day-care centre owners, grew up apathetic and cynical about the definition of marriage. These kids are now answering opinion polls about the “defense of marriage” and wondering does it really matter if two men want to get “married” and whatever happened to tradition?
Whatev’s. It’s all good, Who cares? So what?

So now The State – their State - is contemplating moving a line in the sand and the lawyers are up to their ears in “vested interest”. Activist judges are more than happy to do what the politicians cant or wont and lawyers are lining up to argue ground-breaking precedent cases for a gigantic pool of potential clients over;

*Pre-arranged “cultural” marriages,
Bisexual polygamy,
Transexual polygamy,
The lawful marriageable age of consent in indigenous culture.
Gay adoption,
Transexual adoption,
State-funded health care for gay/transexual reproductive rights (infertility),
Discriminatory bathroom laws,
Consanguineous sibling/cousin marriage,
Marriages of legal convenience (inheritance/probate law),
Custody battles between estranged gay partners and the biological parents of their adopted children,
Rights of the child to know their biological heritage,
Rights of the child to gender-balanced role model parenting.
Untenable sex education curriculum in elementary schools, *

Because those lawyers and judges know that so-called Marriage Equality is NOT just for committed monogamous homosexuals with no plans to “start a family of my own”. They know that the philosophical/legal line in the sand which discriminates against “gays” equally discriminates against EVERYONE ELSE who wants to get “legally married” and can’t. And gay people can’t discriminate against others with a new line on the sand of their own in the form of their own subjective definition of marriage which is intolerant and ignorant of those left on the wrong side of the new line in the sand.

No mention of God so far. These are completely secular issues. That list above would be a LOT longer if the human culture of religion and the so-called right to religious self-expression were factored in. (Eg. Tolerance of sexual identity versus tolerance of religious identity.)

The State has to bear the cost of social dysfunction. Family and marriage breakdown and neglect of children causes social pathologies that The State has to deal with long after the ground-breaking change to the legal meaning of a word. Did society ever do a cost/benefit analysis of introducing no-fault divorce? Isn’t yet ANOTHER dilution of the meaning of the word marriage going to lead to added complication in the way society dysfunctions?

One legislative or judicial stroke of the pen scrambles an egg that can’t be unscrambled and the associated costs will endure for decades if not centuries.

And so The State is entitled to ask SSM activists, WHAT BENEFIT does your new idea bring to the State and its taxpayers?
Forget about secular arguments AGAINST gay “marriage”. The State wants to see some concrete benefit arguments FOR gay marriage - arguments which show what benefit to The State are there in legally recognizing that gay men are attracted to each other (boyfriends) when that same State does not give legal recognition to other insignificant platonic relationships or those who are merely “going steady” and need no official State recognition of their love or friendship.

When people want State recognition for their relationship status The States primary concern is for what that relationship means to The State. And the change from boyfriend to betrothed husband is not a trivial change. There is a reason people need to notify The State of their intention to marry.

 

[inocente]

Speculative indeed but if you’re thinking about this you must also be thinking about the percentage of the heterosexual population that is infertile.

Which group is larger, infertile heterosexuals or homosexuals? (I don’t know but I would like to know and I’m glad you’re on the case.)

Also, what percentage of homosexuals become parents anyway? As we all know, a heterosexual man may still impregnate a woman and a homosexual woman may still be impregnated by a man.

In short, homosexuality need not cut down on the population—as homosexuals are not barren in themselves but only in certain chosen acts----whereas infertile heterosexuals CANNOT reproduce.

The theory is about adaptation. Variance in sexual orientation across a population must in some way be an advantageous adaptation otherwise the trait would have died out. The theory is one way of explaining why it is advantageous.

Your rival theory doesn’t explain why there is variance in sexual orientation. In addition you would need to prove that infertility in a proportion of the heterosexual population is an advantageous adaptation rather than a health problem.

 

[inocente]

If it’s such an advantage, why did no society for the past 20,000 or so years (up until AD2000) recognize same-sex “marriages”? This isn’t just a European or Judeo-Christian thing - there is NO evidence for ANY society EVER doing this, not even those where homosexual behavior was actually required by law.

Not sure about your facts, for instance see Wikipedia, but 20,000 years is a blink of the eye in terms of adaptations.

It’s also worth pointing out that all the discrimination against homosexuals across many cultures has never once succeeded in making it go away, not even the biblical recipe in Lev 20 of putting them all to death.

If varying gender orientation is an advantageous adaptation then the centuries of homophobia were actually to the detriment of humankind, and gay marriage isn’t a moment too soon.

 

[CandideWest]

I have seen that the answer to the OP’s question is that the secular argument against gay marriage goes like this:

…

But to call their union a marriage is a word that we choose to reserve for those who have the additional responsibility for the creation of children.

And, as most gay couples admit, their intent as a couple is not to create children.

The key problem with your post is the above. Because there are also plenty of heterosexual marriages where the couple admit that their intention as a couple is not to create children.

So if you re-define marriage as a specific relationship intended for raising children then these people cannot get married any more than homosexuals can. So you’ll have to ban all those heterosexual couples from getting married.

However, this creates a somewhat odd (and discriminatory) situation where homosexuals are able to have their childless relationships recognised in law (civil union) but heterosexuals cannot.

So to get out of this you would need to introduce civil union for heterosexual couples as well. This however is something which most churches seem to oppose (possibly because it would create a competing alternative to marriage which doesn’t carry the historic ties to churches and thus they fear would further erode the traditional power base and relevance of churches to the general public).

 

[inocente]

And… Incest?

How about NAMBLA?

Surely there is more to the story…

Had to look up what a nabla is, and found it’s yet another strange going-on in America.

Incest is banned because it is often an abusive relationship and it produces unviable offspring.

Pedophilia and pederasty are banned because minors cannot give consent and can be greatly harmed.

Gay marriage involves none of these issues as it’s between law abiding citizens.

 

[inocente]

Except… homosexual couples want to raise children, too, and claim to be just as adept at doing so.

Yes exactly. The theory is that heterosexuals increase pressure to feed the tribe by producing children, while a proportion of homosexuals reduces pressure, since they help look after the children without producing any of their own.

 

[inocente]

You are forgetting that **you **frequently make jocular remarks at the expense of others, e.g.

The examples you quoted were remarks about the arguments, not about the individuals, I try hard to stick to the subject and not make personal remarks.

It is significant that you regarded “intellectual impotence” as humorous until another person added a comment. I can sympathise because you have been outnumbered on this thread and I have been in a similar position several times. That’s when we begin to feel the pressure…

I didn’t think it was humorous, I’m confused about why you accused me of not answering you when I had already replied in detail.

1. It begins on Sunday with my post #408.
2. You replied with #417 on Sunday.
3. You then wrote a second reply #447 on Monday as if you’d forgotten you’d already replied.
4. I replied to your first post yesterday in #463, and told you your second post confused me in #467.
5. You then said I “failed to refute any of the statements” as if I’d never replied!!!

So now why not go back to my reply, #463 and answer it, and if there was anything in your second post that I missed then tell me and I’ll answer that too.

 

[polytropos]

The theory is about adaptation. Variance in sexual orientation across a population must in some way be an advantageous adaptation otherwise the trait would have died out. The theory is one way of explaining why it is advantageous.

Your rival theory doesn’t explain why there is variance in sexual orientation. In addition you would need to prove that infertility in a proportion of the heterosexual population is an advantageous adaptation rather than a health problem.

This is not true. Sexual orientation is not fully genetic and so not necessarily the product of natural selection. In either case, though, explaining why homosexual behavior occurs in a population does not imply that it is actually beneficial for society to normalize it.

The human population is evolving relatively little. You cannot just say that the frequency of homosexuality is increasing, therefore it is evolving; that is scientifically untenable for a number of reasons. We first of all do not know that its frequency is increasing. The human population also is not evolving as quickly as you allege, and you would have to propose some model for why homosexual behavior is being passed onto the next generation more frequently than heterosexual behavior. Since that is very obviously counterintuitive, the onus of explanation is on you. What selecting factors for homosexuality are there in the population, and how do homosexuals pass on their genetic code?

It has happened in some species that homosexual behavior occurs in males because the gene that codes for it is more advantageous in females. ie. females with the gene are heterosexual (and it confers some other advantage, unrelated to sexuality) and the subset of the population with that allele benefits more from having heterosexual females and homosexual males. This is all very good, but homosexuality is not what is conferring the evolutionary advantage, it is just the consequence of it. It is just less harmful to reproductive success of the allele-bearing population; that doesn’t mean that it is helpful.

 

[polytropos]

Yes exactly. The theory is that heterosexuals increase pressure to feed the tribe by producing children, while a proportion of homosexuals reduces pressure, since they help look after the children without producing any of their own.

I apologize if this has been covered. I have not read the whole thread. Do you have a peer-reviewed study for this theory? An example of a culture in which homosexuals were integrated and normalized in such a way? This, also, does not explain how the homosexuality trait would be passed on or why homosexuals need marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

The theory is about adaptation. Variance in sexual orientation across a population must in some way be an advantageous adaptation otherwise the trait would have died out. The theory is one way of explaining why it is advantageous.

Your rival theory doesn’t explain why there is variance in sexual orientation. In addition you would need to prove that infertility in a proportion of the heterosexual population is an advantageous adaptation rather than a health problem.

Well, no. Your theory holds that the reason homosexuality evolved was to act as a brake on population growth. However, nothing prevents homosexual persons from having children. (Infertility does that.) Historically, many people who had sex with members of their own sex also married and became parents. It is only within our lifetimes that same-sex marriages have become legal. So, unless you can show that homosexuality ACTUALLY acted as a brake on population growth, you can’t assume that that is why homosexuality evolved. (Again, homosexual persons are not necessarily infertile; only homosexual ACTS are infertile. We’ve all read stories of gay men donating sperm to lesbian women who wished to become pregnant.)

I wasn’t trying to explain why there is variance in sexual orientation.I was pointing out that your theory doesn’t actually do that because a) it doesn’t show that, historically, homosexuality actually provided the brake on population growth your theory requires, and b) your theory doesn’t address infertile heterosexual couples and for that matter, c) heterosexual persons who never marry. (We may think first of monks, nuns, and hermits, but there are also uncles and spinsters who never married.) Unless, d) you can show that the brake on population growth applied by homosexuality is greater than that applied by 1) infertile heterosexuals and 2) heterosexuals who never marry and / or have children, then there’s no advantage in having homosexual members of a species. (Or at least, if there is an advantage, this ain’t it!)

I need not prove anything here other than your theory doesn’t work. I’m not seeking to explain the evolution of infertility or celibacy; rather, I’m pointing out that your speculative theory doesn’t work and for a simple reason: it is offered as an explanation for something you don’t know to be true. (That homosexuality evolved as a brake on population growth, but you don’t know that homosexuality IS a brake on population growth, especially during the bulk of human history when homosexual persons could not marry each other and many entered into conventional marriages and produced children.)

 

[stewstew03]

Had to look up what a nabla is, and found it’s yet another strange going-on in America.

Incest is banned because it is often an abusive relationship and it produces unviable offspring.

Wait… Why are “viable offspring” important?

And I’m going to interpret “often abusive” as “I have no evidence so this is purely conjecture on my part.”

Pedophilia and pederasty are banned because minors cannot give consent and can be greatly harmed.

Not always. In some cultures the mother of a crying infant will soothe him by performing fellatio. Consent isn’t an issue because it’s not considered “sex.”

In any event, the NAMBLA group meets your definition of love - “just two people who love each other.”

Gay marriage involves none of these issues as it’s between law abiding citizens.

So, there is more to the story than just “two people who love each other.” They must be law-abiding as well. Of course, laws change over time…