What?

My “I wouldn’t count on that” statement wasn’t meant as a proclamation of expertise on “the motivations of the haters of freedom.” It was a comment on the incoherence of your argument.

You then go on to tell me:

And, incidentally, I found it amusing that you discounted my assertion that gay marriage bans are about preferencing heterosexual and discouraging homosexual relationship.

Were you intending to be ironic when you followed it with an obvious illustration of exactly my point?

I just don’t follow you here. Just what did I say after “Here we disagree” that you think illustrates your point?

I understand the parallels in your example. I basically said as much on this blog when I agreed with Prof. Gabilindo (Gabilando? — I’m afraid I’ve forgotten the spelling) that a lot of what we see in the debate about gay marriage and other gay issues is overreaching by the majority.

Still, to say that “straight people didn’t give a damn about marriage until recently” is going too far.

You have a strange definition of “partisan finger-pointing” if you think pointing out a similarity in attitude between two arguments amounts to such.

I’d say it was you who ran out of steam some time ago as you have long since stopped attempting cogent counterarguments.

As long as the older one has nothing, the younger’s content. Status quo maintained.

Considering the divorce rate, especially in the “Pro-Family” areas of the country (MA, after the onset of marriage equality, STILL has the lowest divorce rate, btw)and the amount of out-of-wedlock births in this country, it’s all to clear that straight people didn’t give a damn about marriage until recently, treating marriages like tissues, to be used up and discarded.

This reminds me of when I was a child. My brother would throw a toy away, deciding he no longer liked or wanted this toy. I would rescue it from the garbage and he would protest “Hey, that’s mine!”
Because I saw the value in the object, he suddenly cared about something that just yesterday was on it’s way to the landfill.
It wasn’t a matter of whether it had value to him, he simply didn’t like the idea of me touching something that he still considered his property, even though he didn’t care for it any more.

The parallels are striking, aren’t they?

I have to say that your attitude on this issue– which is that adopted by the American Left — is one that smacks of ‘my way or the highway.’ No compromise is allowed. In this regard it is very much like that of the Christian Right.

Boy, you know a person is running out of steam when they are reduced to partisan finger-pointing. (And you don’t need to be a member of any party to be reduced to partisan finger-pointing.)

When those haters of freedom – whoever they may be – think my efforts are ineffective, maybe they’ll be motivated to support them.

I wouldn’t count on that.

OK, I’ll defer to your expertise about the motivations of the haters of freedom.

And, incidentally, I found it amusing that you discounted my assertion that gay marriage bans are about preferencing heterosexual and discouraging homosexual relationship.

Were you intending to be ironic when you followed it with an obvious illustration of exactly my point?

but no matter how unfair you find the distinctions the governments in this country currently make between homosexuality and heterosexuality, it isn’t sensible to compare these distinctions to colonial laws meant to keep a nation in a state of perpetual dependence.

The sole purpose for recognition of marriage is the promotion of some forms of family unit and the discouraging of others.

This is for the most part true. Our culture’s laws and mores are supporting monogamy over polygamy.

The sole objection to including same-sex couples under the definition of marriage is so as to continue the promotion of heterosexual coupling and discourage homosexual coupling.

Here we disagree. As I’ve pointed out before, many Americans are all in favor of recognizing same-sex couples without calling them marriages. And recognizing homosexual coupling under a title other than “marriage” would hardly be discouraging it.

Heterosexual marriage is an ancient institution with multiple layers of meaning. Socially, it provides the pattern for responsible procreation. Culturally, (and I’ve also said this before) it represents the archetypal relationship of the mutually arising. In both aspects marriage can be about such only if it is exclusively heterosexual. It should be unsurprising that many people wish to maintain the various meanings that marriage has had.

I have to say that your attitude on this issue– which is that adopted by the American Left — is one that smacks of ‘my way or the highway.’ No compromise is allowed. In this regard it is very much like that of the Christian Right.

Whenever a comment is directed at me I tend to think that all of it refers to me or what I wrote unless it explicitly states otherwise.

You wrote,

I believe that every instance in which a gay couple stands up and points at inequality and indignity only serves to move Americans towards the day in which they no longer can look away or not notice that their behavior towards their gay neighbors is inconsistent with fairness and decency.

Since my skepticism about the marriage license stunt makes it clear I disagree with you on the “every instance” point, it seemed reasonable to believe that you were referring to me when you continued with “I’m glad when [gay marriage opponents] think that such civil disobedience only only helps their cause.”

I regret any misunderstanding on my part.

When those haters of freedom – whoever they may be – think my efforts are ineffective, maybe they’ll be motivated to support them.

I wouldn’t count on that.