FYILink is broken. I found the article anyway. Didn't Rob predict this long ago. Wish I could help you out, but I think it's going to happen. No record to run on? Give the kids another feel good "first" to vote for.

 Is your reason forming your opinion or is your opinion directing your reasoning? If appeals to tradition, biology etc hold no sway for you for on SSM it would appear the later is true. That is why very early on I asked if it was about feelings...or what you think is really really important. I don't have to meet your continued demand for a body count...please, I'm just trying to follow the logic.

Huh? No. Your liberty extends so far as not to endanger another's life, liberty, or property. Yes life is the supreme right, as you wouldn't have the others without it. But, you will agree there is no loss of life on either side of the SSM debate. No one dies if gays marry or not. In your argument against women in combat, you appeal to authority, biology, tradition, and the security of society. Yet you dismiss these exact same arguments out of hand when they are made against SSM. You think the ramifications of women in combat are serious,  you don't think the ramifications of gay marriage are. That is your opinion.

con't

Couldn't agree more on the high school reunion part. At my 15 year there were so many awkward moments...you feel like a fake asking people about life when you know they had Mexican for lunch last Tuesday.

Keeping up with the cousins has also had its downsides because I have so so many uber lefty ones. I can't help feeling annoyed with them at holidays over something reveled on FB that I would have had no clue about in the old days.

Really? I thought liberty and property were right up there with life for libertarians.

I really should have quit. Of course there are no dead bodies. I'm saying traditional marriage folk think they are fighting for the very foundation of our society. The same society our soldiers are willing to fight and die for. To say gay divorce is the ramification misrepresents their argument. As I said, I'm not as interested in arguments about the issues in my analogy as in the libertarian reasoning process behind when to limit one person's liberty for the good of the many. 

Nobody for Pride and Prejudice yet? Put me down for it. Also, the BBC's North and South...from the Elizabeth Gaskell novel, not the American Civil War mini series.

Ok, I was done, but this is just laughable and now it's getting quoted and liked. You say my analogy is flawed because the gravity of the ramifications is so different. Do you really think the possibility of gay divorce is why people oppose gay marriage? Come on, you're kidding right? Traditional marriage supporters think their reasons are every bit as serious as battlefield casualties...if not more serious. 

I think those that see marriage as the very foundation of human civilization would argue with you about the seriousness of the ramifications....But, I'm done nagging Casey about this now....We all have to draw the line somewhere. I am certainly not consistent in all my views. Personally not for women Rangers, but I could support someone who could make it on real merits. I don't think messing with the meaning of marriage is a good idea, but I'm supportive of someone I love marrying his partner in a state where it is already legal. Go figure. Good post. Got me thinking, mostly about what it takes to be libertarian. Thanks.

Ok, that's pretty much what I thought you were saying. That's why I made the lame joke about "Lady Rangers," it was suppose to mirror the idea of  "civil unions".  Neither idea is the whole enchilada, is it?  You are making arguments based on biology, lowering of standards, and the specialness of the institution to keep the traditional meaning of Rangers as male, right? Those are the exact same arguments made for keeping marriage male/female. 

Ok...but that's not what I'm talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was comparing the arguments against women fighting to the arguments against SSM. I'm having a hard time understanding why the reasoning that leads some libertarians to support SSM wouldn't also lead them to be pro women soldiers.

What if we create something where women would have all the same rights, privileges and esteem as Rangers just not the name...how about Lady Rangers! 

I'm really surprised you feel this way, knowing your view on gay marriage. Aren't your arguments against female Rangers the same as those against gay marriage? Gays/women don't have the right physical equipment. Marriage/Ranger has a very specific meaning that will be fundamentally altered or diminished through this kind of change. The future of our country's society/security will be threatened by such change. If these arguments aren't reasonable in your eyes against SSM, why do they work against female soldiers? I'm not trying to be a jerk, it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it just comes down to feelings or what is really important to you? 

I found the link interesting too, thanks. Of course, I question whether or not I am being truly loving. I think I am. He is committed to the "lifestyle" either way. My sincere hope is that their love is  strong enough, deep enough, and selfless enough, to grow into a desire for the ultimate good for eachother. Maybe I sounded too sure of myself before, I understand and agree with different arguments on both sides of the SSM debate. I'm not certain of the impact on society, but my hope is that it will be for the good. Civil unions or getting government out of the marriage business would be imperfect but workable answers IMO.

He is well aware of the alternative and his family's wish that he would choose it. But, we can't make him choose it. He had another option, the best IMO, but it has been unjustly set out of his reach. But, that's another topic, and not one I feel capable of discussing right now.  So, yes, at this point, these are the only 2 options. I support the one that offers many many more good things than the other. Btw I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated the book, Beyond Gay, you recommended for me many months ago. Difficult to read emotionally, but I it's one of the very few books on the topic that I didn't find utterly sophomoric, completely offensive, or just plain worthless. It offers important insight and much hope. Unfortunately, the hope it gives is not a likely outcome for our family. With a philosophy degree and many years of his life spent studying at the Gregorian, my brother is not lacking knowledge or understanding, or likely to be surprised by truth.

Is it possible to believe homosexual acts are sinful and support gay marriage anyway? This is where I find myself. I have a gay brother who recently asked his partner to marry him. I support them. Why? I believe committing to a exclusive bond of mutual love and support will be a better way of life for their bodies, hearts, minds and yes, even souls, than bouncing around alone from one random lover to the next. Like Trace, I even hope that "domestication" in the gay community will be good for society as a whole. I believe homosexual acts are sinful, and it's not something I take lightly. I have studied theology, natural law,and philosophy trying to find myself an out. My brother knows this and respects my ability to reason. He knows I love him. I do not hate him or fear him or think he is destroying society. He also knows I do not think his particular sins and struggles are somehow more horrifying than my own, or any other fallen and flawed person's on this planet. If anything, I think there are mitigating factors to homosexual sins. I pray it is so.