Randolph M. Jones wrote:
> stephenJ wrote:
>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>> stephenJ wrote:
>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>>>> stephenJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex acts
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant?  (I doubt it.)
>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such
>>>>>>> acts to
>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other?  (I doubt it.)
>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an
>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets
>>>>>> what in
>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their business.

>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to
>>>>>> respect it
>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the  social
>>>>>> legitimacy of
>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to
>>>>>> offer
>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal
>>>>>> married
>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples
>>>>>> get, etc.).

>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance?
>>>> Yes.

>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful that
>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion.  I think
>>> you are going for a reaction here.
>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.

> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:

> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage"
> (whatever that means).
> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs.
> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.

> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on
> which to base legislation.