Is it, though? The argument I advance against homosexual marriage proceeds from the legitimate interest of the state in supporting marriage and reproduction.

If it helps any, I hardly more often find myself in agreement with conservatives on most issues than with progressives...

So, you would deny marriage rights to a heterosexual couple who are infertile and unable to have children?

No, I would hesitate to extend marriage rights to an entire class of people, of all of whom the same is true.

So you would ban post-menopausal women from getting married. Understood.

Again: no. I'm not sure what value you find in attempting to mischaracterize my argument by assuming results which do not follow from anything I have actually said.

I'm sorry: you would hesitate to extend marriage rights to post-menopausal women.

Did the status quo not already include such a right, this would be a meaningful point to raise. As it does, and we are in fact discussing heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage, I don't really see what you're getting at with it.

You're saying you want to not allow X because of Y. When others point out that making Y the criteria allows disallows A, B and C, you argue those points away as not important; you still want to allow A, B and C. That's basically special pleading. My conclusion - and I assume the conclusion of the people arguing with you - is that Y can't be your real reason for disallowing X.

I'm arguing that this change to the status quo (ante), of heterosexual specificity in marriage, was not warranted. To support that argument, I'm explaining why that status quo has value which is reduced, rather than increased, by permitting marriage among homosexual couples as well.

As I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out, this isn't the same as arguing that permission to marry should be contingent upon procreative capacity. I can see how it might come across that way, from a starting perspective of weighing one vast change to the status quo vs. another such vast change, and I think I've failed adequately to clarify that I'm approaching the question instead from a perspective of weighing one vast change to the status quo vs. no such vast change. It's a different question.

You're cherry-picking one of many possible arguments for the status quo, arguing that this argument should be considered in the particular case of same-sex marriage while ignoring other cases where it might also pertain, and then repeatedly moving the goalposts, but whatever.

You're also characterizing this as a "vast" change. What is the vast change here? From a logistical perspective, it doesn't exist: you pass a law allowing same-sex couples to do the exact same thing that opposite-sex couples can...and now they can go do so using exactly the same procedures as opposite-sex couples could before, and obtain thereby exactly the same benefits (tax advantages of joint filing status, visitation rights, and a host of other small preferential treatments given to married couples).

Speaking of those benefits: while they exist, it is categorically impossible to uphold equality of rights and opportunities while opposing same-sex marriage. The only to reconcile these two positions is to either a) pick one or b) redefine marriage such that it confers no civil benefits (which would indeed be a vast change).

I've addressed all your other points elsewhere in this thread, but the following is new:

> You're also characterizing this as a "vast" change. What is the vast change here?

That marriage should now be an institution open to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual. Taken in isolation, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, either. But nothing in society exists in isolation, and quite aside from the historical novelty of it, many millions of people regard this particular change as a very big, and very undesirable, deal indeed.

The impression I have is that those with whom I've argued the point here today see no reason to doubt that they know better than those many millions who share this opinion - so much better, in fact, that there's no point taking very seriously any argument, opinion, or belief, other than that which they themselves advance, espouse, or profess - or at least already agree with on all substantial points.

I was that confident once, too. Sometimes I miss it. But nothing is ever simple, and pretending otherwise can make fools of us all.

Why extend marriage rights to the class of people who are infertile? I don't get why you're giving that class of people special privileges.

I'm looking to find a balance between the interests of the state and those of its individual citizens. In a heterogeneous society, which all societies to some extent are, this is a complex question. To oversimplify it benefits no one.

And do you really want to equate homosexuality and infertility, which for all intents and purposes is a medical disorder? Is that where you want this conversation to go? It's not where I want this conversation to go. My sexuality is not a medical disorder.

All I'm doing is examining the inconsistencies in your position. You seem to think the ability to reproduce is important, except for heterosexual couples, where it doesn't matter.

I don't believe the intent was to call your sexuality a disorder, it was to demonstrate the dangers of applying rights by class instead of universally.

There's a difference between applying rights and inventing them. The latter is certainly worth doing when it's warranted, but it also strikes me as worth setting a very high standard for doing so, because in a state constituted as ours is, to create a new right instantly overrides broad swaths of existing law and precedent. Such potentially dangerous actions should not be contemplated except in a case where their absence perpetuates a harm so grievous and unjust that nothing less will do.

As I've argued at length in this thread and the comments I've linked therein, I don't think it's reasonable to consider that standard met here.

>> the legitimate interest of the state in supporting marriage and reproduction.

Why is that a legitimate interest of the state?

Because it perpetuates the state's existence.

You don't need state intervention to encourage people to reproduce. I am sure that groups that believe in waiting until marriage to have sex would acknowledge church marriages as they always did.

Cynically you could argue that the state benefits far more from dysfunctional families who are more likely to become dependant. I would rather the government spend money on sex education and contraception for teens than supporting married couples.

Indeed you don't, but there's a lot the state can do to encourage and facilitate children being reared in stable families which can prepare them for an adult life which is a net benefit to their society.

Your cynical argument has value as well. The trouble is that the only even temporarily stable state thus produced is a single-party state, and you can't really kick everyone off the dole once you've finished using it to get where you want to go. It's an ongoing cost whose magnitude is only ever likely to grow over time, and the probable economic result is frightening.