Trach, your condesention aside, I did read the article and I think beyond the economic privledge of marriage as it exists in the public sector (allocation of funds after spouse death, tax breaks, etc) that arguing any stance beyond that does indeed trespass into the 'private' sector of our lives.  You know, the sector that *no one* has any business getting their nose all up in.

As for my stance as a revisionist principle, there's nothing liberal about the stance of revision, in fact, reform was a platform that conservatives and republicans have ran on more so in our history than the Democrats and Liberals.  In fact, I'll go as far as to say, religious ideology aside, I don't understand how Conservatives aren't MORE supportive of a homosexual's equal right than Liberals are.  Afterall, Most conservative principles were rooted purely in the economic and the keeping away the powers of government from interfering in our private lives, or making what is private newly allocated into the public sector of things, for the sake of bettering society.  I personally believe people can survive when left to their own vices and that, for the most part, society does not need a parental figure in our Government which holds our hand, tells us what is and isnt acceptable in our private life, and given the right to enforce such subjective ideologies that vary from who is holding the power.  IT goes back to the general reason America's governing model back during the creation of this great nation showed more human promise than any other form of heirarchal government out there.

My point is this, marriage *does* bring up alot of slippery slopes and subjective questions and scenarios and each person will differ greatly on how they would handle the situation.  However, most of these decisions, in fact, I'd go as far as to say ,economics aside, *ALL* those issues are private and to the discretion of the parents/spouses involved and is no place for you, me, or our government to go sticking our noses into.  As it stands then, the main detractor that gives any weight to the anti-gay marriage argument aside from religion ideologies are the socio-economical rammifications of a flawed system that allows too much to be exploited and affords privledge in a discriminating manner.  Once this situation is revised and reformed to eliminate these loopholes, there is no real reason to *not* afford homosexuals the *EXACT SAME* rights are heterosexuals.  Sure, you *can* argue issues such as child-rearing, that homosexuals are 'parroting' a formerly established tradition, however, it is not your place to decide what is legitimate child-rearing, nor does heterosexual culture hold the monopoly on the marriage model from a private sense.

I am not saying that he agrees with the 'liberal-reformist' argument, I *am* saying is that his article is about how *THE WHOLE CAKE IS BAD* meaning that the marriage model in general, even the cake that heterosexuals have the privledge of eating without protest, is equally bad.  That does not present an argument against homosexual marriage, it presents an argument *against marriage itself.* 

I mean geeze, you hurl all these slanderous terms like 'idiot' 'blind' and so lovingly express how the audience here views me based merely off of your obviously impeccable and inarguable opinions, yet you are the one who fails to read the article for its intended purpose because you're too busy trying to make a case against homosexual marriage.

And yes, I do use the term bigot because alot of your arguments reek of the same soft, pussy-footed excuses many Southern Democrats used to defend the Jim Crowe south and other forms of 'light racism' such as the 'seperate but equal' ideal. 

African Americans are shown to also raise their children often in a different manner than caucasians.  Should we now be reviewing the legitimacy of interracial marriage?  Afterall, what if both parental styles clash too much causing the child to recieve a defunct parental model to be raised with? 

How about 'unconventional households' in the case where the mother is the main breadwinner and the father is the stay at home parent?  It doesn't fit with society's interests in viewing the male figure as the head of the house so should we now insist that people from certain financial brackets on the female end may only marry those with a higher annual income than their own? 

OR in the case of a mother who work causes her to travel 50% of the time, much like the traveling salesman of the 50s where the father may be on the road 10-14 days a month?  Since the mother is not only the main bread winner, but the father has taken over the main duties of nurturing the children, should we then abolish their legitimacy to marriage?

My question is, again, aside from the economic privledge principle and the religion argument (which we are all aware you aren't pursuing as you claim) you provide a weak, translucent argument that somehow other elements like the parenting structure of a homosexual union is too ambiguous and 'different' from the conventional nuclear family to work.  Like I said before, that model may be the majority of households, but there are plenty of different family models out there in heterosexual couples where even entire gender roles are reversed and turned on their ear, yet not only are they successful, but society still permits them the right to marry, even when they break the same standard that you now present for why homosexuals should be exluded from the marriage model.  Think about it Trach, its not hard, there isn't anything about homosexuals that render them less apt to parent, function as a family unit, function as a couple, and also function in a marriage equitable to heterosexual marriage.

While you also bring up the 'parroting of tradition' how is today's heterosexual couple not parroting the heterosexual couples of the past, yet if a homosexual desires marriage, they are.  It is a hypocritical argument.  You cite our author as claiming because they have no established their *OWN* ceremony as reason for its illegitimacy, but this too is rediculous.  Again, I will ask, since in the past, most races married within their own race, is an interracial marriage illegitimate and a posing of a marriage, merely because there is no specifically different or unique event in that marriage than from all other marriages? 

No.  Marriage as a social construct in the modern world today is still viewed by most as a pledge to another person to love, live, and work with them in life, through sickness and health, and blah blah blah.  Who's to say homosexuals don't want JUST that?  Because they aren't 'like everyone else' they aren't given legitimacy until they re-invent the wheel just to please some jerks who wish to preserve a tradition they view as ONLY theirs?

Quite childish and arrogant as well as heartless if you ask me.  At any rate, all the principles and reasons you brought up to argue against homosexual marriage I have, yet again, put to bed.  I'll ignore your lil side swipes on me because I hardly worry much when called a fool by fools themselves.  Think what you wish of my stances, my reading comprehension or my character, but I assure you the thread as of now speaks for itself and I believe your argument may be taking on water now at a fast rate.  Hope you've got a big bucket and been working on those arms.  At this rate your argument will need them to keep afloat much longer.