A question about the opponents of gay marriage

[afleitch]

I must oppose it, no matter whether I want to or not, or I am going directly against the word of god, which I am always striving to avoid.

If you see married same sex couples, some who have been together for years, decades even and they are caring for each other, supporting each other, nursing each other through illness and death, do you see in that 'sinful acts'?

When my husband was in hospital and I held his hand as he went under general anaesthetic and he came out of it, do you think that was a sinful act? When I changed his bandages and washed his scars was that a sinful act? I did these things because I love him more than I've ever known how to love. Was it the result of 'sinful' lust?

[afleitch]

I am not a Christian. I do not feel 'shame' over an integral part of my being. That's just silly. Please give a valid reason why your definition of sin should exclude me from marrying?

[afleitch]

That's not answering the question. I am married under New York law. On what qualification should that marriage be rescinded?

[afleitch]

So wait. I'm a Scotsman with an American husband.  Under your law neither of us would be able to settle together because we couldn't be sponsored for a settlement visa. Why?

[afleitch]

...which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

If the state has an interest in procreation; i.e the having of and raising of children (and infertile, post menopausal couples sit aside from that 'just because'), yet you think its okay for gay couples to adopt, then why should children be given less rights than other children or be perceived as 'different' by law or by social convention, just because their legal parents happen to be of the same sex?

There are as much as 6 million children in the USA that live in such a situation. What have you got against them? Why should procreation/raising children - if that's what marriage is 'all about' only matter if their parents are of the opposite sex?

[afleitch]

...which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

If the state has an interest in procreation; i.e the having of and raising of children (and infertile, post menopausal couples sit aside from that 'just because'), yet you think its okay for gay couples to adopt, then why should children be given less rights than other children or be perceived as 'different' by law or by social convention, just because their legal parents happen to be of the same sex?

There are as much as 6 million children in the USA that live in such a situation. What have you got against them? Why should procreation/raising children - if that's what marriage is 'all about' only matter if their parents are of the opposite sex?

Nothing. No? Okay.