. . . the kinda guy you'd like to have a near-beer with.

Science will soon overcome your first objection. Then your second objection will be dissolved within the confusion of "evolving concepts of reproductive freedom."

Only God can save us now!

You've given me my new and perfect definition of a Nihilist: A Libertarian who's trying to be funny.

I do not, but sometimes it can't be reasonably avoided, and should be allowed when it's the least bad choice.

Yes, except when it's the least bad choice.

That's their business, and should remain so.

Closeted? Hmmm? How about discreet. (No gay pride parades, please!) Abstinent? That's their business.

 I am against its acceptance as a norm as good as any other arrangement.

Almost certainly. But one feels obliged to try for what seems right. Eventually, you will tire us out. That will be your fault, not mine.

NOTA BENE: The responses above are theoretical, for discussion purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect the actual opinions of whatever person might use the handle "Astonishing" because he needs to hang on to his day job just a little longer.

I agree with all, but am pessimistic.

In the presence of the undeniable fact that many GLBTs are very nice people who feel hurt because they aren't allowed to marry the one (or two) they truly love, all your good reasoning falls on deaf  ears.

One does get "sick and tired" of being seen as mean and ungenerous.

We withdraw, try to preserve our own, let the rest go to [expletive].

I can't speak for Katie (she's a tough nut to crack), but I certainly will grant that I cannot "prove," in a conclusive way, that homosexuality is unnatural.

That is not the kind of question that can be proven that way. But  a discussion of what's natural still might help us understand the question better.

Indeed, one could argue like a good modern that, if homosexuality is not "natural," that is not a bad thing, because human progress is a continuing escape from the tyranny of nature, climbing up from the caves and down from the trees to create a refined and civilized existence. That's not my view, but it is a powerful view.

The advantages and disadvantages of discarding the "natural" standard is the modern dilemma. Conservatives and liberals occupy both sides, even simultaneously depending on the particular question.

(We're most all of us, including me, such an intellectual hodgepodge mess, I wonder how we find our way out of bed in the morning.)

The mere fact that something "exists in nature" does not make it "natural" and certainly does not make it "naturally good" for human beings.

It  sounds at first like a contradiction, but unnatural acts do "exist in nature." For example, the taking of what rightly belongs to another person  "exists in nature," but natural law nonetheless declares theft wrong for humans.

Unnatural sex acts also "exist in nature." For example,  rape most certainly "exists in nature ," yet natural law declares rape unnatural and wrong. Or shall we say that "how we regard and treat rapists is not a natural law, but rather a practice of man."

(If the proponents of gay marriage are on their game,  I will now be accused of comparing homosexuality to rape and will be shamed into silence .)

To investigate properly what it means for something to be "natural" and what constitutes "natural law" would require an honest philosphical discussion for which those like you and me, who really are "sick and tired," might not have patience. 

"Silly distraction" is a rhetorically effective form of argument, than which the only things sillier are those like us who play the "straight" man.

When you offer facts debunking one silly assertion, you will be confronted with distraction after distraction, until finally a distracting implication might be made that  you think gays are dogs, or some such silliness.

I do not think gays are dogs.

But even if I did think that, how would that have relevance to my modest little point that Tommy De Seno was uproariously incorrect about an important historical fact when he asserted the

state only became involved in marriage in 1753.

All I can do to resist the silliness is return boringly, relentlessly, to my modest little counterpoint, which is that the political power (i.e., "the state") has always been "involved" in determining what constitutes a valid marriage. Ask Henry VIII. See the 1604 English statute criminalizing bigamy. Read a little history of Roman law.

Apparently I had not.

Yes, this is that predictable inevitable moment in discussions of this subject when, in the absence of evidence or argument against my modest little point, I must feel properly bullied or shamed into  apologizing.

Sorry!

No one said they were. 

Notably, you do not answer whether the 1604 English statute criminalizing bigamy constituted government invovlement affecting marriage formation.

Notwithstanding the rhetorical distraction your latest reply deploys, your claim that  the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" remains utter nonsense,  debunked by a moment's consideration of actual history, and in no way supports your implication that government should stay out of the question of what is a valid marriage.

Do you claim the 1604 English statute prohibiting bigamy had no relevance to marriage formation?

The difficulty is not that I ignore "marriage formation" (which you unilaterally dictate as "the topic we are on"), but that you  elevate form (the name of the organization, if any, whose stamp is on the marriage document, if any) and ignore substance.

Your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" ignores the substantial fact that "states" have always been "involved" in determining what qualifies as a "marriage" with legal significance. Perhaps you could "privately" deem yourself married to Fido, but what would that matter if Obama would not mandate adding "spouse" Fido to your health insurance?

Misleading, and simply historically incorrect,  is your contention that  the . . .

state only became involved in marriage in 1753.

You assert this historical non-fact to support your contention that goverment should stay out of the question of what constitutes marriage because (as you mistakenly claim) government has historically not been involved in that question. 

Bigamy has been a statutory crime under English law since at least 1604. 

Rules based on marital and family status, enforced by government, affecting who gets the kingdom or the family business are powerful "involvement" of government in the question of  "what is marriage" i.e., the question of what combinations of  persons shall receive the rights and duties of that thing [heretofore] called marriage.

From his grave, Henry VIII hoots and howls. The entire English Reformation hoots and howls.

Ah, if life were only so simple . . . but it's not.

Unfortunately, you can call the rose by some other name and try to define the problem away, but the dichotomy you assert (a dichotomy you assert without making an argument to support its choiceworthyness) does not resolve the political question, which is:

"What combination, if any, of one or more beings of what sex, species, age, and number, for what purpose, should receive the special status  (heretofore known as marriage) with rights and duties not accorded to other combinations of sexes, numbers, species, ages, and purposes? And why?"

When government enforces rules of descent and distribution, it "sanctions" a particular concept of marriage and family. For example,  a child of a second simultaneous marriage might not inherit under law, and that constitutes government "sanction" of monogamy and corresponding refusal to "sanction" polygamy.

Mistaking form for substance, you wrongly think that "involvement" or "sanction" is limited to the names of organizations whose stamps appear on the marriage document.

Well, then you should have said that, but even then you'd be quite wrong, in that marriage was not "completely secularized" by the 1753 law.

Much more to the point, what remains  insupportable is your suggestion, however you want to phrase it, that the state's active interest in marriage is merely a recent phenonomenon.

The opposite is true.

Every government always and everywhere, from the simplest tribe to the European Union,  has actively interested itself in the structure of family, what constitutes family, and what are the rights and duties relating thereto.

 I assume you refer to the Marriage Act of 1753, but to say that the Marriage Act was the first instance in which "the state became involved in marriage" is simply . . .

 . . . head-snapping, jaw-dropping nonsense.

 The Greeks, the Romans, the British, the Jews, the Muslims, all had marriage rules enforced by the state.