Yes, that's the statement they want to make. The queer lobby needs to desacralize and separate sex and reproduction. Consider that there is a VLWC (vast, left-wing conspiracy), being a coalition of outsiders and complainers. Thus the Catilinarian party line includes the notion that anything which has to do with killing babies is a positive good.

Do supporters of the legislation really need to make the symbolic statement that the lives of others should be sacrificed for their own benefit

No, of course not.
However, not everyone will agree that a zygote is a human being, any more than everyone agrees that every sperm is sacred.

Essentially, some of us value the already-born over the will-never-be-born.
Banning Federal funding of stem-cell research hasn't caused any lives to be saved, since no lab was buying zygotes from women who otherwise would have implanted and carried them to term.

Lou Gots:

Since when has the average hetero-, whether present day or from any age in the past, considered sex to be "sacred" ?
(Granted, many married men have considered their conjugal "rights" to be sacred, and not to be trifled with, but that's not quite the same).

For heteroes, the cleaving of the sex/reproduction linkage began in earnest in the 30s with Margaret Sanger et al., culminating in the birth control pill, introduced commercially in 1960. In 1965, the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraception, even by married couples, and by 1972 unmarried couples had a right to access to birth control.

Thus, even if one accepts that homoes "need" to separate sex and reproduction in order to make social or political gains, that path has been well-trod by heteroes before them, and it could be argued that such is already the norm in mainstream society.

Really, abortion on demand, widespread use of contraceptives, and no-fault divorce have led directly to gay marriage.

Whatever objections some breeders have to letting queers marry, it cannot be denied that it was heterosexuals that brought us to this point.

Oops.

Michael

So, yes, it is just a statement that others should die for you.

Michael:

Absolutely correct, and furthermore all most all those things you mention have been characterized as fundamental legal rights beyond the touch of democratic process. It explains why the movement for gay marriage is moving so far so fast--basically most people are no longer capable of articulating a cogent reason against, especially in the face of all the screaming about equality and human rights. But what do you think the liberal reaction would have been back in the sixties and seventies if opponents of those measures had warned that they would lead to gay marriage?

No. Heterosexual intercourse, even if casual, even if performend under conditions which have made conception impossible, is nonetheless related to reproduction. It is part of man-woman bonding and role formation.

This is so even in the case of adolescent sex-play, or post-menopausal intercourse. In Spencerian terms, social customs which channel sex drives toward heterosexual relations support reproduction, not merely in the gross physical sense, but also in the sense of including the education of children. That's what the "family values" code-word is all about.

I am glad that Peter B said that only most people are incapable of articulating a cogent reason agains homosexuals undergoing the form of marriage. Where are the conservatives here?

oj:

No, as I just explained. Your statement carries the same weight as a PETA freak screaming "Meat is murder !!"

Your opinion only, and whether correct or not, (just as the PETA stance is correct to a degree), unsupported by the culture at large. Not to mention completely unprovable.

However, given the rather cavalier system that God set up for eggs and sperm, whatever evidence there is suggests that God isn't quite as taken with our carnal selves as we are.

Peter B:

I suspect that the warnings wouldn't have been believed.

Even if they had been, considering what issues were at stake, many/most proponents of those changes might have figured that it was a price worth paying, a view that I happen to agree with, even though it's conjecture.

Lou Gots:

You seem to be assuming that if gays can legally get married, more people will decide that they want to live as homosexuals, a notion that I find hard to accept.

If marrying sheep suddenly becomes legal, how many people are really going to decide that chasing women is too expensive/time consuming/frustrating, and settle in with Dolly ?

If nothing changes for current heteroes in the sex/marriage department, how does anything gays do affect "family values" ?

Lou:

If marrying sheep suddenly becomes legal, how many people are really going to decide that chasing women is too expensive/time consuming/frustrating, and settle in with Dolly ?

Yeah, Lou, have you thought about that? Well, have you? Have you?

These modern guys are just so clever.

Michael:

God gave us the meat as our dominion. But He told us to love one another, not eat each other or use each other as objects otherwise.

Peter B seems to have fallen into the error of holding that homosexuality is a status rather than a behavior. Of course it is important for the health of society that this behavior continue to be considered deviant and shameful, just because the sex-reproduction nexus I have previouskly described must be maintained.

Those few individuals who are irrevocably misfocused in their choice of sexual objects are to be pitied and, I would say, left to their privacy. They may not, however be allowed to transform our folkways to ratify their afflictions. That would be too gay.

If marrying sheep suddenly becomes legal, how many people are really going to decide that chasing women is too expensive/time consuming/frustrating, and settle in with Dolly ?

Does an affinity for zoos count as a risk factor?