[peter12]

I still don't understand your point. If you accept that gay people can and do raise children (I can't tell if you do or not), then do you accept that gay people should have access to a child-rearing institution like marriage (just accepting for the sake of argument that marriage is a child-rearing institution.)

I think you are suffering a bit from the ideological stance that most people take on this issue. If we are speaking functionally, I am sure gay people can raise children (whatever that means). Certainly, from a socio-biological perspective, homosexuals have probably always had an active role in the social aspect of child-rearing. More specifically, I think there is a huge problem with increasingly bio-technological means of creating families. That is a connected issue.

I think that you misunderstand Warner's point. He argues that same sex marriage should not be the sole goal for gay rights activists (and that the ultimate goal should be equal legal benefits for gay people who choose other types of relationships.) That may well be a valid point. But it does not support your bizarre argument against same sex marriage.

It is funny that I have never actually said that I am "against" SSM per se. I have frequently said that I support the relational dignity of gay people. Really what that means is that I certainly love that gay people no longer have to fear loneliness anymore.

As for Warner, his problem is with conformity, or a certain bourgeois attitude towards marriage that is being adopted with the gay rights mainstream. This opposes his more bohemian perspective of homosexuality.

Would you argue against protection from gender or disability-based discrimination in the workplace because it increases pressure to conform for women or disabled persons?

Obviously, for most generally good-natured, and compassionate liberals, the gay marriage issue is about protection from discrimination. I would disagree. As I have stated many times in various forms, but I will restate again more explicitly, the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to SSM, but is a general symptom of an overall shift in what a family is called, and what is its purpose. I don't agree with that shift. My tolerance of homosexuality has very, very little to do with that perspective.