That reasoning would then think it is ok for brothers and sisters to marry, polygamy, polyamory, etc. If not, then please tell me how the reasoning above draws a line?

Aside from the fact that you don’t like it and feel the need to stick your nose into polygamy give me a good reason why the government should make it illegal? The same goes, for that matter, for incest.

I may find these things distasteful, but what gives me the right to dictate to you what you can, or cannot, do in private so long as you do not violate the life, liberty or property of another person?

Regardless, in all of those cases, there are other reasons covered under existing laws for preventing the “marriage,” as opposed to the one argument those against same sex marriage have, which is that “they aren’t a man and a woman.”

gblues, I would simply say that for a long time, slavery was the status quo. For an even longer time, segregation was the status quo. The majority of people in this country supported those institutions at the time they were in existence. Does that make them right?

Also, for the record, your statement that “throughout all of human history, in every culture, marriage has been one man, one woman. period.” is more than slightly incorrect. There have been numerous cases of different cultures the world over having some sort of same sex marriage.

anyone that thinks gay and straight relationships are the same and therefore need to be treated the same is simply dumb.

throughout all of human history, in every culture, marriage has been one man, one woman. period. that is the staus quo. it has the presumption, and therefore the pro gay marriage argument has the burden to prove it is right and beneficial to our culture and that all of human history is wrong. now, lots of historical beliefs have been and may still be “wrong” so show us. frankly i have a hard time believing an argument can made that gay and straight marriage are the same, that gay marriage leaves us with a better culture or that the butt is equal to a vagina. biology argues homosexuality is an abnormailty. not something to be encouraged or rewarded but sympatheticaly tolerated.

That reasoning would then think it is ok for brothers and sisters to marry, polygamy, polyamory, etc. If not, then please tell me how the reasoning above draws a line?

PS: Yes, I’m an Independent.

(I kid)

you’ve hti on one of the most scary aspects of life these days. people don’t know how to define themselves without government.

what about Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and the rest of the California Democratic contingent in Congress?

The two most common arguments against this I see are the following:
1) What about divorce? Marriage would be a contract just like any other. If you want out of a contract there are usually ways of doing it. Neogtiation and arbitration have settled disputes throughout history. If you cannot be adult enough to decide who gets what or custody of the kids then you’ll have to get yourself a mediator… and you’ll pay for it yourself.

2) Some hospitals and some family members will prohibit gay spouses from visiting loved ones should they be hospitalized due to incapacitation. The solution, again, is an easy one. Give your gay spose limited power of attorney over you should you become incapacitated. Spell it out in no uncertain terms. These sorts of agreements are common place for family members dealing with the elderly, so why can’t they work with gay couples?

Note that saying “leave it up to the states” is NOT “supporting gay marriage.” That has been the cop-out of most high-profile Democrats, including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

And let’s not forget who signed federal DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law — the Democratic pervert-president, Bill Clinton.