tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post2662168423635273061..comments2023-05-11T04:57:33.365-07:00Comments on Trees For Lunch: On Gay MarriageUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-24990098981046501672011-01-26T10:35:59.463-08:002011-01-26T10:35:59.463-08:00OR it's because the views you present as repre...OR it's because the views you present as representative of "gays opposed to gay marriage" represent such a tiny minority within a small minority that they're really not worth responding to. One might even say "politically irrelevant." Also, you're trolling from 2-year old posts on blogs less trafficked than your own.GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-89692488880401829632011-01-25T18:54:28.112-08:002011-01-25T18:54:28.112-08:00Whereas I find it quite interesting that the Troll...Whereas I find it quite interesting that the Troll Patrol didn't wish to even provide any sort of counter-argument to any of the points raised by gays opposed to gay marraige.<br /><br />That might require actual thought which is much too hard for them and besides, it's so much more <i>fun</i> to prance about spouting off the word "bigot" at others without backing it up in the slightest.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-63040962708105735202011-01-25T15:46:00.163-08:002011-01-25T15:46:00.163-08:00I am quietly thrilled to see that, more than two w...I am quietly thrilled to see that, more than two weeks after the OP, the ONLY comment here is from someone beginning to reconsider his opposition to SSM.GentleSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635966921313379917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-63976697200437605902011-01-19T16:52:59.452-08:002011-01-19T16:52:59.452-08:00Here is one area where I am starting to consider a...Here is one area where I am starting to consider a libertarian point of view; not that I approve of gay marriage, but because I am starting to question why the government should be in the marriage business in the first place: I touched on this in a post I wrote a couple years ago entitled <a href="http://mdcrustacean.blogspot.com/2008/11/marriage-abortion-and-gays-oh-my.html" rel="nofollow">Marriage, Abortion and Gays, Oh My!</a> <br /><br />In one of my subpoints, I stated:<br /><br />The sacredness of marriage was and is reflected by its celebration as a religious sacrament. The history of government’s role in the institution is probably two fold: 1) it goes back to times and societies when the line between church and state was blurred, for better or for worse (usually worse); 2) governments and societies have recognized their compelling interest in promoting and preserving marriage as a means of fostering healthy family units as part of a well ordered society. It also protected women and children from abandonment.<br /><br />The state’s compelling interest in preserving marriage and the family used to be reflected in how difficult it once was to obtain a divorce. Before the advent of “no-fault” divorce laws, there had to be a compelling reason to justify a divorce. If the sanctity of marriage vows was not sufficient to keep struggling couples from parting ways, the extra layers of social opprobrium and legal impediments against an easy divorce often preserved the union. Now those safety nets are largely non-existent, and marriage from a governmental point of view has been reduced to nothing more than a contract, similar to a limited partnership or an S-corporation, which is easily dissolved upon request of one or both parties. How sad! <br /><br />It is this sad state of affairs that makes it difficult to argue against gay marriage.The Maryland Crustaceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309250912148013290noreply@blogger.com