This is my hope.

It’s a funny thing. I’ve been paying attention to how marriage has been discussed socially, and it genuinely seems to have had an impact on some couples. They do see “married” as being different from cohabitation or other ceremonies. It feels different and so they respond differently.

Your analysis of other’s motives is tiresome.

I’m not analyzing your motives. I’m just pointing out that what you stated as your motives don’t align with what you are desiring.

Changes in social policy, from the best of intentions, do not necessarily have the outcomes hoped for.

Absolutely true. But it appears to date that those countries and states that allow same-sex couples to commit to each other have not regretted that decision.

Amusingly, the National Organization for Marriage turned in an amicus brief in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger appeal in which they stated that same-sex marriage had the “negative consequence” of being accepted by the public.

Changes in social policy, from the best of intentions, do not necessarily have the outcomes hoped for.

1) You will never know if they achieve the outcomes you hope for unless you try

2) Sometimes the changes do in fact have the desired outcomes

3) Our society has a long history of discrimination – against sexes, against people who look and act differently – but thank God our history is replete with righting these wrongs

Sometimes these changes in social policy don’t have the outcomes desired, but at least, with this country, when it comes to making sure its citizens are treated equally under the law – its nice to know that bias and bigotry don’t win at the end of the day

However, if you look at the debate from the perspective of sexual responsibility, then same-sex non-committed activity is FAR FAR closer to “sexual revolution” than is same-sex marriage. If you oppose sexual irresponsibility because of the negative consequences of the sexual revolution, then it holds as self-evident that you would favor those measures that encourage fidelity and discourage promiscuity. And same-sex marriage does – for gay people – encourage fidelity and discourage promiscuity.

This is my hope. There were many theories when marriage was reassessed in the 70’s and 80’s that suggested it would be better for couples, women and children…that, generally, has not turned out to be true.

Perhaps you are mistaken in your understanding of what motivates your opposition to marriage rights for gay people.

Your analysis of other’s motives is tiresome.

Regarding the Crusades as the onset of the Culture War…I can not track that logic.

Hyperbole for effect. My point is that there have ALWAYS been culture wars in every culture at every time. There has ALWAYS been a war between cultural conservatism (compliance to the social/sexual/established ethic) and individualism in every culture, time or place.

But that does not detract from the fact that the current incarnation of the Culture War is obsessed over my sexual orientation. Why can’t we fight over important things like Papal Indulgences or church governance or the control of the Holy Land (oh… I guess we still do).