Iowas Decision

[micatala]

As you may have seen, the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... S/90403010

The ruling is not up for appeal, and the legislative avenue for turning this back will be difficult and time consuming, with no possibility for a voter recall until 2012.


Questions for debate:

1) How much does this bolster the case in the U.S. agains gay marriage bans?

2) Is this a blip, or a signal of the tide turning?

A couple of snippets from the judges:

Fridays decision also addressed what it called the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate and said judges must remain outside the fray.

Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them, Cady wrote.

This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.

I will try to post a link to the full decision. As another question for debate, we could consider the quality of this decision. Is this "judicial activism run amok" or is this another "Brown versus Board of Ed" ruling in which the judiciary stands up for minority rights that the majority is unwilling to bestow?

[JoeyKnothead]

Why stop at gay marriage, polygamy, or bestiality? I'm sure there are many consenting adult pets available. Who's to say the park bench does not consent?

This has to be the saddest attempt at rationalization I have seen. Legally, a consenting adult is someone who can sign a contract.

I have yet to see a pet, or a park bench be able to sign a contract.

I can understand not being able to marry pets, what with the whole sentient being deal.

Not that I'm advocating it, but I do wonder why it should be against the law to marry a bench. I mean, at least the bench won't nag you about where you've been.

[micatala]

Gay couples began getting marriage licenses and even getting married today.

http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_12237585


The article notes at the end that Iowa has a history of being in front on social issues, including inter-racial marriage. I will take that as a good sign that the country as a whole will be moving in this direction.

Would any of you gay marriage supporters see any problem with using the same logic with those that wish to marry their goat(bestiality)? Polygamy?

Well, given polygamy is very clearly condoned in the Bible I am not sure why you would have an issue with it.

I would grant that there are many verses in the Bible that hold up monogamous marriage as the ideal, but option A being the ideal does not mean that options B and C etc. are forbidden. Nowhere is polygamy forbidden in the Bible. Paul writes that deacons should be monogamous but this is clearly a special directive for deacons. The fact that he addresses the issue as he does clearly means polygamy was practiced in Paul's time and that it was not considered against Mosaic law or common practice or even sinful.

Why stop at gay marriage, polygamy, or bestiality? I'm sure there are many consenting adult pets available. Who's to say the park bench does not consent?

Tell you what. Let me know if you get any responses from your local park bench. Maybe you can ask them what their favorite baseball team is or if they prefer to have ketchup or mustard spilled on them.

If anyone is talking to park benches and getting responses back, it probably indicates mental illness.

Why stop at gay marriage?

Marriage is a civil contact between consenting adults. Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.


Imposing a religious teaching as the law of the land for everyone to follow violates freedom of religion, unless one can show there is a legitimate secular purpose to the law. We prohibit murder and stealing because such prohibitions have a legitimate secular purpose and foster a well-functioning civil society.


Would Fisherking be in favor of a law which stated "You must worship the Lord God alone", thus making the first biblical commandment the law of the land?


Would Fisherking favor a law which says that everyone must tithe 10% of their income to a church?


Would Fisherking ban divorce and remarriage?


If not, why not? Why allow these practices that are contrary to Biblical teaching and yet advocate banning gay marriage?

[Fisherking]

Gay couples began getting marriage licenses and even getting married today.

http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_12237585


The article notes at the end that Iowa has a history of being in front on social issues, including inter-racial marriage. I will take that as a good sign that the country as a whole will be moving in this direction.

Would any of you gay marriage supporters see any problem with using the same logic with those that wish to marry their goat(bestiality)? Polygamy?

Well, given polygamy is very clearly condoned in the Bible I am not sure why you would have an issue with it.

I would grant that there are many verses in the Bible that hold up monogamous marriage as the ideal, but option A being the ideal does not mean that options B and C etc. are forbidden. Nowhere is polygamy forbidden in the Bible. Paul writes that deacons should be monogamous but this is clearly a special directive for deacons. The fact that he addresses the issue as he does clearly means polygamy was practiced in Paul's time and that it was not considered against Mosaic law or common practice or even sinful.

So that's 3 votes for making polygamy legal also. Got it.

Why stop at gay marriage, polygamy, or bestiality? I'm sure there are many consenting adult pets available. Who's to say the park bench does not consent?

Tell you what. Let me know if you get any responses from your local park bench. Maybe you can ask them what their favorite baseball team is or if they prefer to have ketchup or mustard spilled on them.

If anyone is talking to park benches and getting responses back, it probably indicates mental illness.

Some would consider homosexuality a mental illness, in fact it was considered a mental illness until fairly recently.

The term objectum-sexuality was coined in the 1970s by a woman named Eija-Riitta Eklf Berliner-Mauer from Liden, Sweden, who was married to the Berlin Wall.[2] The term OS is often used in lieu of objectum-sexual.[3] Objectum-sexual individuals also believe in animism, or the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings, and are able to communicate.[4](Wiki)

What would you tell Eija-Riitta and like-minded individuals if they wanted to legalize marrying inanimate objects?

Why stop at gay marriage?

Marriage is a civil contact between consenting adults.

Many believe marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Why should we accept such a broad definition that could include 2 women and 1 man, 3 men, 6 men and one woman, 17 women a 5 men, or 70 virgins and 1 man? Talk about a slippery slope...

Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.

Adults who choose to do so could consider anything under the sun a religious right. Cannibalism is a religious right in some areas, should we legalize it also for the idividuals who wish to practice it?

Imposing a religious teaching as the law of the land for everyone to follow violates freedom of religion, unless one can show there is a legitimate secular purpose to the law. We prohibit murder and stealing because such prohibitions have a legitimate secular purpose and foster a well-functioning civil society.

What would that legitimate secular purpose be, if it is indeed legitimate? How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?

If not, why not? Why allow these practices that are contrary to Biblical teaching and yet advocate banning gay marriage?

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman(as it has always traditionally been). In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

[Goat]

Due to the demographics of opposition to gay marriage, some republicans are rethinking their opposition to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Opposition against gay marriage is crumbling drastically in the younger crowd

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 5 Post 43:

Some would consider homosexuality a mental illness, in fact it was considered a mental illness until fairly recently.

Implication here being that it is an otherwise normal human condition.

What would you tell Eija-Riitta and like-minded individuals if they wanted to legalize marrying inanimate objects?

I don't have to bring a gift do I? No? Cool.

Many believe marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Why should we accept such a broad definition that could include 2 women and 1 man, 3 men, 6 men and one woman, 17 women a 5 men, or 70 virgins and 1 man? Talk about a slippery slope...

As long as they're all consenting adults, what business is it of anyone but those concerned?

Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.

Adults who choose to do so could consider anything under the sun a religious right. Cannibalism is a religious right in some areas, should we legalize it also for the idividuals who wish to practice it?

LOL If you are unable to understand the difference between marriage and cannibalism, there's not a whole lot we can do for ya.

...How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?

How does discriminating against an entire class of people, based solely on who they wanna have sex with not hurt the civil collective?

Homosexuals are not arguing the points you seem so stuck on.

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman(as it has always traditionally been). In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

I predict you're gonna have a very upsetting next ten years or so.

Homosexuals have spoken up for their rights, and they are winning in more and more venues.

[micatala]

Gay couples began getting marriage licenses and even getting married today.

http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_12237585


The article notes at the end that Iowa has a history of being in front on social issues, including inter-racial marriage. I will take that as a good sign that the country as a whole will be moving in this direction.

Would any of you gay marriage supporters see any problem with using the same logic with those that wish to marry their goat(bestiality)? Polygamy?

Well, given polygamy is very clearly condoned in the Bible I am not sure why you would have an issue with it.

I would grant that there are many verses in the Bible that hold up monogamous marriage as the ideal, but option A being the ideal does not mean that options B and C etc. are forbidden. Nowhere is polygamy forbidden in the Bible. Paul writes that deacons should be monogamous but this is clearly a special directive for deacons. The fact that he addresses the issue as he does clearly means polygamy was practiced in Paul's time and that it was not considered against Mosaic law or common practice or even sinful.

So that's 3 votes for making polygamy legal also. Got it.

No, you are the one supporting polygamy since you seem to be the one who makes all their decisions based on the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Is that not so? Hmmm.

Well, if you don't buy that argument then you shouldn't be claiming I support legal polygamy since I didn't say that. I simply said that the Bible condones polygamy. Since you base your opposition to gay marriage on the Bible, if you also follow the BIble's explicit statements and examples regarding polygamy, you should be OK with it.

I never said I was.

Why stop at gay marriage, polygamy, or bestiality? I'm sure there are many consenting adult pets available. Who's to say the park bench does not consent?

Tell you what. Let me know if you get any responses from your local park bench. Maybe you can ask them what their favorite baseball team is or if they prefer to have ketchup or mustard spilled on them.

If anyone is talking to park benches and getting responses back, it probably indicates mental illness.

Some would consider homosexuality a mental illness, in fact it was considered a mental illness until fairly recently.

I would say a person who hears park benches talking has way more problems than homosexuals. At least with homosexuals, their problems are caused by other people discriminating against them, not themselves.

The term objectum-sexuality was coined in the 1970s by a woman named Eija-Riitta Eklf Berliner-Mauer from Liden, Sweden, who was married to the Berlin Wall.[2] The term OS is often used in lieu of objectum-sexual.[3] Objectum-sexual individuals also believe in animism, or the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings, and are able to communicate.[4](Wiki)

What would you tell Eija-Riitta and like-minded individuals if they wanted to legalize marrying inanimate objects?

I would tell them marriage is a contract between consenting adults. I would tell them inanimate objects do not have rights under the law.

I would tell you that this is a silly straw man.

Why stop at gay marriage?

Marriage is a civil contact between consenting adults.

Many believe marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Why should we accept such a broad definition that could include 2 women and 1 man, 3 men, 6 men and one woman, 17 women a 5 men, or 70 virgins and 1 man? Talk about a slippery slope...

If you want to debate why polygamy should be illegal I am fine with that. If and when we have an actual polygamists marriage movement then we can talk about slippery slopes. Until then, this is all highly hypothetical.

At bottom, slippery slope arguments amount to "if we change law A then there is no logical reason not to change any and all other laws."

Following your logic, allowing people to consume alcohol means we have to allow them to consume any and every other drug on the planet. Obviously the facts show this argument to have no validity.

Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.

Adults who choose to do so could consider anything under the sun a religious right. Cannibalism is a religious right in some areas, should we legalize it also for the idividuals who wish to practice it?

Your comparisons are becoming more and more far-fetched.

It also works against your own case. Following your slippery slope argument, allowing marriage as a religious rite means we have to allow any other religious rite people want to practice.

Following your "slippery slope argument", allowing churches to seal a marriage contract means we have to also allow churches to seal real estate sales, stock transactions, employment contracts between employers and employees, labor deals, financial aid agreements between colleges and students, etc., etc. If churches have the capacity to legally determine if and when two people form this contract, we must therefore allow them to determine the formation of any other contract as well.

Would this be your position?

Imposing a religious teaching as the law of the land for everyone to follow violates freedom of religion, unless one can show there is a legitimate secular purpose to the law. We prohibit murder and stealing because such prohibitions have a legitimate secular purpose and foster a well-functioning civil society.

What would that legitimate secular purpose be, if it is indeed legitimate? How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?

Since animals cannot give informed consent, bestiality amounts to animal cruelty.

I am not sure what the laws are on object sexuality. My guess is it is perfectly legal now, as long as you are not doing it in public.

Cannibalism would entail not following the law with regards to the disposition of human remains. It also could be considered a risk in the sense that it could lead some people to engage in murder. Many cannibalistic societies certainly practiced murder of the victims ahead of time.

On the other hand, some societies (one in New Guinea is the most recent example I believe) practiced cannibalism as a religious rite, eating the dearly departed, especially the brains. They were eventually convinced to stop this practice due to the rather substantial health risks involved. I would say the same secular purpose that is involved in having regulations about the disposition of dead bodies, funerals, embalment, cremation, etc. would serve to justify making cannibalism illegal, but I'll let you research that.

Also, if there is any non-religious benefit to cannibalism, the only thing I can think of is the nutritional value. However, this can be obtained in other more traditional ways.

For a homosexual, the value of pursuing sexual happiness cannot be obtained in other ways (otherwise they wouldn't be homosexual, would they).

If not, why not? Why allow these practices that are contrary to Biblical teaching and yet advocate banning gay marriage?

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman(as it has always traditionally been). In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

Having strong families is a good thing for societies, I agree. However, you are rather wrong about one man one woman marriage always being traditional. As noted above, marriage was not defined as such traditionally in the Bible.

Furthermore, what fosters a well-functioning society is not or at least should not determined by the whims of opinion in a reasonable society. If you could show that gay marriage presents more of a danger to a well-functioning society than other freedoms which we do allow, then you might have a case. We allow people to be single parents, for example. We allow divorce and remarriage We allow people to drink alcohol. I think if we looked at the effects of these on society we would see they are MUCH more deleterious to a well-functioning society than gay marriage. So far, the places where gay marriage is legal have not been shown to suffer deleterious societal effects, certainly not any worse than other effects we accept as the price of living in a free society.


Keep in mind there are some on this forum who believe and have strongly argued that allowing religion is bad for a well-functioning society. Although I do not buy these arguments and don't participate too much in such threads, I do think one could easily argue based on history that religion has caused way, way more harm than homosexuality and does currently causes more harm than gay marriage.[/u]

[micatala]

Due to the demographics of opposition to gay marriage, some republicans are rethinking their opposition to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Opposition against gay marriage is crumbling drastically in the younger crowd

Interesting article. I noted especially the following.

In this latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, 42 percent of all respondents said they supported gay marriage, compared with 22 percent in March 2004. By contrast, 18 percent of Republicans supported gay marriage, while 49 percent said they opposed any kind of recognition of gay unions. The electorate at large seems to be moving while Republican base voters are not, a challenge to any Republican seeing to win his or her partys nomination in 2012.

An increase from 22% to 42% to me represents a sea change, and this cannot be explained totally by the older folks dieing off and the younger folks becoming adults. Individual people, a lot of them, are changing their minds.


I also recall last fall's VP debate. Both Biden and Palin said they were against gay marriage, but Biden indicated that the "constitution demanded" we respect the rights of gay couples and needed to allow for civil unions. Palin did not say this, but did agree we needed to "respect people's constitutional rights."

To me, this represented a success for gays in that the question is more and more being framed as one of constitutional rights, and even some of the opposition is acknowledging this is appropriate (however grudgingly. Palin did not look particularly happy to be agreeing with Biden).

[Fisherking]

I simply said that the Bible condones polygamy.

No it doesn't.

Since you base your opposition to gay marriage on the Bible, if you also follow the BIble's explicit statements and examples regarding polygamy, you should be OK with it.

In this debate I haven't based my case against homosexuality on the bible but if I did, the bible cleary supports my position against gay marriage, polygamy, and bestiality.

I would say a person who hears park benches talking has way more problems than homosexuals. At least with homosexuals, their problems are caused by other people discriminating against them, not themselves.

Are you not discriminating or being dismissive with the object sexualists who love inanimate objects?

The term objectum-sexuality was coined in the 1970s by a woman named Eija-Riitta Eklf Berliner-Mauer from Liden, Sweden, who was married to the Berlin Wall.[2] The term OS is often used in lieu of objectum-sexual.[3] Objectum-sexual individuals also believe in animism, or the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings, and are able to communicate.[4](Wiki)

What would you tell Eija-Riitta and like-minded individuals if they wanted to legalize marrying inanimate objects?

I would tell them marriage is a contract between consenting adults. I would tell them inanimate objects do not have rights under the law.

We have been telling gays for years that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gays do not have rights under that law. So basically, all a group has to do is get marriage redifined to include their little group -- I don't see a bottom to this slope.

Why stop at gay marriage?

Marriage is a civil contact between consenting adults.

Many believe marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Why should we accept such a broad definition that could include 2 women and 1 man, 3 men, 6 men and one woman, 17 women a 5 men, or 70 virgins and 1 man? Talk about a slippery slope...

If you want to debate why polygamy should be illegal I am fine with that. If and when we have an actual polygamists marriage movement then we can talk about slippery slopes. Until then, this is all highly hypothetical.

According to the definition of marriage you have provided it is not hypothetical, but reality. The only requirement is that they are "consenting adults".

At bottom, slippery slope arguments amount to "if we change law A then there is no logical reason not to change any and all other laws."

No, the law we are specifically referring to is that of marriage. The slippery slope is to define marriage as "consenting adults".

Following your logic, allowing people to consume alcohol means we have to allow them to consume any and every other drug on the planet.

This would be a false analogy. A truly representive analogy would be to have heroine addicts parading around attempting to gather support to redefine alcohol to include heroine.

Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.

Adults who choose to do so could consider anything under the sun a religious right. Cannibalism is a religious right in some areas, should we legalize it also for the idividuals who wish to practice it?

Your comparisons are becoming more and more far-fetched.

It also works against your own case. Following your slippery slope argument, allowing marriage as a religious rite means we have to allow any other religious rite people want to practice.

Read the above exchange again. You were arguing that because one considers marriage a relgious right they are justified to do so under the freedom of religion. I simply pointed out that anything could be considered a religious right (including cannibalism), but anything is not always legal.

Following your "slippery slope argument", allowing churches to seal a marriage contract means we have to also allow churches to seal real estate sales, stock transactions, employment contracts between employers and employees, labor deals, financial aid agreements between colleges and students, etc., etc. If churches have the capacity to legally determine if and when two people form this contract, we must therefore allow them to determine the formation of any other contract as well.

Would this be your position?

No.

Imposing a religious teaching as the law of the land for everyone to follow violates freedom of religion, unless one can show there is a legitimate secular purpose to the law. We prohibit murder and stealing because such prohibitions have a legitimate secular purpose and foster a well-functioning civil society.

What would that legitimate secular purpose be, if it is indeed legitimate? How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?

Since animals cannot give informed consent, bestiality amounts to animal cruelty.

Most animal behaviorists can determine whether or not an animal is giving consent or not. If they deem the animal "loves" their human companion, would you then be o.k. with bestial marriages? If not, what "legitimate secular purpose of fostering a well functioning civil society" would be infringed upon(if it is indeed legitimate).

I am not sure what the laws are on object sexuality... Cannibalism....

My question was "What would that legitimate secular purpose be, if it is indeed legitimate? How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?".
It appears for OS and Cannibalism your answer is simply, "Is it lawful or not?". Then for homosexuality, it appears "pursuing sexual happiness" is the ultimate goal.

For a homosexual, the value of pursuing sexual happiness cannot be obtained in other ways (otherwise they wouldn't be homosexual, would they).

If not, why not? Why allow these practices that are contrary to Biblical teaching and yet advocate banning gay marriage?

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman(as it has always traditionally been). In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

Having strong families is a good thing for societies, I agree. However, you are rather wrong about one man one woman marriage always being traditional. As noted above, marriage was not defined as such traditionally in the Bible.

Yes it was.

Furthermore, what fosters a well-functioning society is not or at least should not determined by the whims of opinion in a reasonable society. If you could show that gay marriage presents more of a danger to a well-functioning society than other freedoms which we do allow, then you might have a case.

Assuming everyone has the same idea of a "well-functioning society" and what constitutes a "reasonable society". I have shown that redifining marriage to include gays is a slippery slope, and ultimately dangerous for traditional families and values. Redifing anything to accomodate a vocal minority (or majority for that matter) is extremely dangerous for any society.

[upallnite]

Redifing anything to accomodate a vocal minority (or majority for that matter) is extremely dangerous for any society.

Cool, we all agree then. It should go back to the way it was when the Native Americans ran this place and people could marry the person they were attracted to.

No it doesn't.

Thank you for raising the level of debate to such high standards.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 5 Post 48:

In this debate I haven't based my case against homosexuality on the bible but if I did, the bible cleary supports my position against gay marriage, polygamy, and bestiality.

It is my contention this continual insistence on equating homosexual marriage with bestiality and polygamy is an attempt to frame the debate outside of the parameters of the question at hand:
Why gay marriage?

Are we really seeing a lot of homosexuals asking to marry animals? Are we really seeing a lot of homosexuals asking to marry multiple partners?

It has been shown in this thread that bestiality involves an animal that cannot give informed consent. Everyone has agreed there should be no "bestial marriages", and such "slippery slope" has been pretty much soundly rejected as a relevant issue to homosexual marriage.

I notice it is always those opposed to homosexual marriage that seem so concerned someone is gonna want to marry a goat. I contend this is nothing but an emotional ploy designed to take the issue from one of consenting adults to a realm no one is arguing for.

As to polygamous marriage, I have yet to see a valid reason such marriages, when between informed, consenting adults should be disallowed.

Are you not discriminating or being dismissive with the object sexualists who love inanimate objects?

No, we are being dismissive of your straw man tactics.

Have homosexuals been clamoring to marry inanimate objects?

We have been telling gays for years that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gays do not have rights under that law. So basically, all a group has to do is get marriage redifined to include their little group -- I don't see a bottom to this slope.

If we restrict our thinking, and our laws to potentialities we're liable to be unable to either think, or enact laws.

That "we" have said something for a very long time should not restrict us to to say that such "sayings" are wrong now, or were wrong in the past.

Are we restricted only to history? Are we not allowed to shape our own present? Our own future?

"History" used to say the Earth was flat, must we now go back to such ancient "knowledge"?

If you want to debate why polygamy should be illegal I am fine with that. If and when we have an actual polygamists marriage movement then we can talk about slippery slopes. Until then, this is all highly hypothetical.

According to the definition of marriage you have provided it is not hypothetical, but reality. The only requirement is that they are "consenting adults".

Definitions of words can, have, do, and will change over time.

"Sick" as commonly defined is to be ill. "Sick" in popular culture now can also mean that something is really great, awesome, or some such.

At bottom, slippery slope arguments amount to "if we change law A then there is no logical reason not to change any and all other laws."

No, the law we are specifically referring to is that of marriage. The slippery slope is to define marriage as "consenting adults".

"Slippery slope is bad" arguments restrict us to existing laws. Are we not intelligent enough to enact laws that reflect society, rights, and all that is to be human?

...A truly representive analogy would be to have heroine addicts parading around attempting to gather support to redefine alcohol to include heroine.

Shouldn't we, as a society, have the right to define words in the manner we see fit? Especially when such changes in definition reflect a new understanding, and way of thinking?

Read the above exchange again. You were arguing that because one considers marriage a relgious right they are justified to do so under the freedom of religion. I simply pointed out that anything could be considered a religious right (including cannibalism), but anything is not always legal.

Unless we, as a society, decide to make it so.

However, I'm just not seeing a lot of homosexuals seeking to have cannibalism allowed.

Most animal behaviorists can determine whether or not an animal is giving consent or not. If they deem the animal "loves" their human companion, would you then be o.k. with bestial marriages? If not, what "legitimate secular purpose of fostering a well functioning civil society" would be infringed upon(if it is indeed legitimate).

Again, I'm just not seeing a lot of homosexuals advocating bestiality.

My question was "What would that legitimate secular purpose be, if it is indeed legitimate? How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?"...

As silly as I find this whole bestiality argument, let's think about it...

I would contend as a logically, reasonably derived conclusion, that as humans we have decided that having sex with animals is wrong because we can't truly know if the animal is giving informed consent or not. That a 'loving pet' may allow such could be merely a reflection of its obedience, and not its sexual acceptance.

Then for homosexuality, it appears "pursuing sexual happiness" is the ultimate goal.

Why is that such a bad thing? Add to that the notion that homosexuals are seeking to have the government recognize their place as a family, with all rights and responsibilities that entails.

Before you jump the gun here, I speak of family as only the 'marriage' and not children as a product thereof. It is my contention that homosexual couples should forgo raising children in the current social climate until such time those children would be free from the taunts and bullying of their peers. (Purely as a concern for the child's well-being)

...I have shown that redifining marriage to include gays is a slippery slope, and ultimately dangerous for traditional families and values...

Not so much. Though you offer your opinion on such, you offer very little by way of empirical data.
Further, the "traditional family" angle says nothing about homosexual marriages that forgo children.

I must ask, how does a homosexual marriage threaten Fisherking's family?

Redifing anything to accomodate a vocal minority (or majority for that matter) is extremely dangerous for any society.

Again, don't we as a society get to define terms on our conditions?

I think you lack empirical data to claim "is extremely dangerous". I propose that be correctly rephrased as "could be extremely dangerous."

When properly rephrased, we can then decide as a society whether a potential redefinition is such the threat.

I contend that marriage, as a function of government, should be defined according to the definition supplied by society. As such, if we as a society decide to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, then we as a society have that right.