jackowens wrote: Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?
"The question is immaterial to the issue."
As far as I know there are only two ways to object to homosexuality as far as institutionalizing it goes: a) on a religious basis, calling it a sin; or b) on a secular basis calling it sexual perversion. Obviously I'm not going to get away with calling homosexuality either a sin or by calling it repugnant. That leaves me with the only alternative that I know of: calling it a sexual perversion, and I believe that those who call it a sin would not object to calling it a sexual perversion. So let's see whether the question of homosexuality being a sexual perversion is or is not material, shall we?
The question is not whether to object or approve of homosexual relationships, but whether or not those relationships may have equal footing with heterosexual ones.
Neither an argument from sin nor sexual perversion applies here. Since sin is a religious argument which cannot seek validation under law, and sexual perversion is a standard in which is not defined...
Here's a link to the definition of paraphilia (sexual perversion): http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Perversions
It cites the DSM-IV, and nowhere will you find homosexuality listed as a sexual perversion. I might add that you WILL find multiple references to sexual practices in which one partner does not consent.
You are going to need to decide if you wish to discuss the act of marriage, or the more general topic of homosexuality. If you simply wish to make an argument against the social acceptance of homosexuality, by all means, go nuts. However, if you mean to assert that homosexuals may not marry because it institutionalizes their sexual practice, you've made the topic ambiguous. Homosexual may have sex without marriage (like heterosexuals), marriage is not a requisite status for intercourse.
"You've convoluted the topic."
I believe that your assertion points up the need to put a flooring under our discussion. Here's what I suggest as a first plank:
A. Since there must --and I emphasize must
-- be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.
The error is in your tailoring your argument against gay marriage by arguing against butt-sex and scissoring. Marriage is the institution, and straight couples becoming married isn't required to promote heterosexual sexual relationships. You're over-sexualizing the institution.
"Sure. I'll say yes. Sexual perversion exists. This forces no hand of any sort. What's your point? This means nothing in a conversation about MARRIAGE."
Are you saying, then, that you're in favor of institutionalizing sexual perversions, marriage being a cultural institution?
Legalizing gay marriage; granting homosexuals the SAME rights as heterosexuals in marital unions does not institutionalize sexual perversions.
"I'm additionally interested in your response RE: 'obliged to approve.'"
I mean if one wants to be ethical, according to Gay Liberation ideology, one is obliged to approve of homosexual marriages.
If one wants to be ethical and obliges principles of equality and freedom in which they no doubt enjoy and want defended, then they support homosexual's rights to marry, even if they find it abhorrent. Much like the freedom of speech, ethically we are guided to defend the right of hate speech, because we state that our own values are to let speech (even unpopular) to be permitted in the public square. You may not wish to promote homosexual relationships, but if you accept the rights given to you by the state and value those rights and value the equal application of rights amongst all citizens, then you MUST accept that homosexuals marrying is a part of protecting your own rights. If you don't believe in these things (far be it from be to project), then simply share your opinion in honest terms: That you believe homosexuals to be less entitled than you and that you do not object to asymmetry in application of laws.
The support of homosexual marriage does not require a subscription to Gay Liberation theory. It requires ethical honesty. You are not required to approve of any marriage, and no marriage pends on your approval. If Gay Liberation theory says this (I think you've misinterpreted), it is wrong. Just as wrong as say... thinking homosexual require public consent to exercise the same rights in their relationships as straight couples.