Since this thread has proven contentious, and spawned much discussion, I'd like to define something I hope we can all agree on: discussion.
What is the purpose of a discussion? Primarily, I'd say, it's to express our opinions on a particular topic. Secondarily, I'd say, it's to persuade others into sharing those opinions. The primary goal is easy enough to understand, but how does the secondary goal work? In my opinion, it works when we say something that another person comes to agree/can identify with.
But therein lies the rub: "persuade", or "comes to agree with." This suggests that, prior to the discussion, the opinion was _not_ a shared one. So in order for the secondary goal of a discussion to work, those taking part in it must be willing to critically examine their current opinions in light of the alternative opinions others are presenting.
Let me make immediately clear: that doesn't imply that your opinion has to change. In fact, if you find that your opinion on something does change after a single discussion, it's either because 1) it was an _abnormally_ good discussion, or 2) you had already been considering changing your opinion - the discussion was just what finally pushed you over the edge.
Seriously, critically, examining our own opinions when presented with alternatives - regardless of whether that examination causes us to modify our opinions or not - is, in my opinion, what it means to be a reasonable human being and, also in my opinion, implies a realization that one person can never have all of the right answers.
I'd like to stress that second bit: "one person can never have all of the right answers." Even with the help of _any_ external system of thought or belief, whether it be religion, spirituality, science, intuition or otherwise, one cannot have all the right answers. Different people arrive at different answers (via different methods, no less). It's _our_ duty to realize that sometimes our own answers are right, and sometimes the answers of others are right.
If you agree with what's defined above then, in my opinion, we can have a healthy discussion that will allow all who take part to learn and/or grow.
If you disagree with what's defined above then, in my opinion, we cannot have a healthy discussion and neither of us will be able to learn and/or grow.
I'm not insinuating that the course of conversation so far as been one or the other. Indeed, I think that we have seen both. What I'm asking is that, before engaging, we each honestly examine which side of the coin we're on and, if necessary, lurk until we are ready to have a discussion.
Since this post wasn't already long enough, I'll offer my own opinion.
Congratulations to all those people who may now _finally_ enter into an undisputable legal union with their significant other! YES! YES! YES!
That said, it's a shame that the government classifies legal unions as marriages. The term 'marriage' has a particular religious meaning, and under the current law the use of that term is not in accordance with its meaning. Unfortunately the government has placed many fundamental rights (property, medical, financial, custodial, etc.) under that term (and its doubtful that it will be changing any time soon).
In my opinion the government should have no religious affiliations. It should seek instead to establish a common framework of law that _all_ belief systems can act within. That means things like public order, federal programs, social programs and the rights of the citizenry and industry. Under such a framework, the gender identity of two consenting adults entering into a legal union is hardly relevant. The legal oath is the same regardless.
If the citizens would like to conduct a religious ceremony in addition to their legal oath, that is absolutely within their rights. Likewise, the religious group has equal right to deny ceremonies that it feels would violate their beliefs.
Now, it has been argued: if you allow homosexual union on the basis of equality, then you open the door for cousins or animals to marry.
I disagree with that opinion.
This is precisely why the government should be separate from the church. Earlier I said that the government's role is to establish a common framework of law that _all_ belief systems can act within. Through law, the government should enforce something like this: So long as one's beliefs do not cause unconsented injury to a sentient being [0], and so long as those sharing in your beliefs are themselves willing participants and fully capable of giving their consent, then you should be left in peace.
Under such a framework, cousins cannot enter into union because a) there is a law preventing it in the first place, and b) if they are heterosexual and have children, those children face an elevated risk of unconsented injury due to genetic abnormality. Under the framework humans also cannot marry animals since animals are not fully capable of giving consent (notice that this also applies to minors and those with cognitive disabilities - they can't fully consent). In fact, I think current U.S. law already behaves much like this framework.
From a broader perspective, you may notice that, at least in the case of cousins, the only true damage occurs if they sexually reproduce. The law prohibits their union, but I would agree that if they cannot reproduce, legally swear not to reproduce, or if genetics reach a point where it would not matter, there's no reason not to remove that particular law (they must still pass the full consent test).
That's against the beliefs of a religious system? It is not the role of _any_ religious system to police _everyone_. A religious system may police its own willing adherents in accordance with its established beliefs, but as I've stated universal policing (and judgement) is the government's perogative.
But how does the government decide? Democracy (in the U.S.). Anything less is authoritarianism. Coincidentally, this is _exactly_ what the U.S. was founded on.
It has also been argued that homosexual unions do not lead to children and are therefore invalid.
I disagree with that opinion.
One of the religious purposes of a marriage may be to have children, but a legal union certainly has no requirement. A legal union serves only to provide certain rights to the two consenting individuals entering into that union.
On a more personal level, I'd suggest that the world hardly needs more human beings on it, and that, if one would like to raise a child, there are many, many, many in need of fostering. ANY qualified adult could foster a child in need, so again limiting unions based on gender identity hardly seems relevant.
If you've stuck with me this long: thank you!
[0] This could be a whole sub-discussion about what constitutes sentience, etc., but that's not a subject I'd like to discuss at present.
