[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

You didn't even read my post. I have yet to see anyone but Iowa refute my argument.

Actually, I read and responded to your original post. I guess it was you who did not read my post. As for your second post...

To begin with norms are the effect of our choices, the fact that marriage is optional and people choose to engage in it is what makes it a norm. The norm has changed, however, moving from an Aristophanic view of love and relationships as eros to a Lockean view of relationships (and children) as being instrumental in the conquest of nature.

I'd argue that this isn't entirely true. Childless marriages are becoming more common, as are family units where the parents live common-law.

In regards to stability, this isn't a bad thing. The family unit with children raised by a mother and a father is the best way to raise children who are stable, contributing "members of society."

Do you have any empirical data that backs up your claim that gay parents are somehow less qualified than straight parents?

This is why I still think we should keep around the traditional definition of marriage as the only marriage in modern society. It is the best way for encouraging stable family units in a materialist world where notions of God and the eternal order no longer resound in communities and extended families.

That's all fine and dandy, except it ignores the fact that the dynamic of the traditional family has changed drastically. Marriage isn't the stable institution it once was revered as. Once again, I also don't see how allowing gays to marry affects the ability or desire of straights to marry.

On to my view of love and why I think homosexuality is prior and more significant than being subsumed by this bourgeous definition of marriage. Going back to Plato's Symposium we learn of the Greek definition of eros. That is, the notion of soulmates and longing we feel for other souls. In regards to human sexual activity, this is not bourgeous morality. It involves often a pansexual exploration of oneself in a very Dionysian fashion. Promiscuity leads the way to one day stability.

Homosexuality, especially, according to Socrates is notable for this type of behaviour. Historically, homosexuals did not have the final consequence of the marital act to act as a natural break to their sexual activity. Homosexuals were far more likely to explore the notions of brotherhood and community bonding through their sexuality.

I would argue that homosexuality, like much of humanity, has most likely evolved past the age of Socrates. Your argument that promiscuity among heterosexuals is eventually curtailed by marriage ignores your earlier thesis that marriage is a choice. Heterosexuals are not destined to be married, nor is marriage mandatory for them.

While some homosexuals may use their sexuality as a means of bonding, there are many who ultimately view it in the same way as heterosexuals do, as an emotional and physical commitment. If gays want to be promiscuous and unwed, they are still able to do that regardless of whatever marriage legislation exists.

Going back to your earlier point about promiscuity leading to stability, commitment, etc.; couldn't that also be a good thing for the gay community? If they do view marriage as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of promiscuity, would that maybe then lead to a reduction in some of the problems that plague the gay community, namely HIV?

Legalizing gay marriage uses the modern language of rights. Ignoring the diversity and plurality of society, it instead seeks to bureaucratize something as personal as love creating a new norm where bourgeois morality is the state-approved norm for all relationships.

And how is this different than marriage in general?