There must be something wrong with your logic, because it surely leads to a contradiction in the real world. Gay men who have been encouraged in the past to “try out” heterosexuality, to marry a woman and have some kids, of pretending to be someone they are not, have generally caused themselves and their spouses and their families nothing but pain and misery.

Are you really truly saying that you’d love for your daughter to marry a gay boy?

I’ll leave it to you to figure out where your logic goes wrong, but I’m pretty sure it somewhere around the claim that “Bible writers” understood the complexity of the modern world.

It’s not that we want to deny them pleasure, it’s that we want them to find happiness in the classical sense of fitting themselves to reality, of being most fully themselves, and when we read the scriptures we read that this, as the Biblical writers understood it, precludes gay relationships.

But for me, the strongest evidence submitted in support of the argument that God blesses and is honored by committed gay relationships is the fact that so many of them last. To love God is to commit oneself to loving one’s fellow human beings, and is there a fuller, more mature love than that of one committed partner to another? If gays can meet this test — and they can — then who am I to say their love for each other is not of God?

Why, when we know that we all have such short lives, when we know that there is so much suffering and pain and violence in this world (even in the US where most live relatively good lives), would we ever want to deny two people whatever happiness they can find, all for the sake of upholding the “ideal” version of marriage that some people hold?

References to polygamy only strengthen the traditional definition of marriage. You’ll notice that the very word (poly-gamy) denotes multiple marriages–not multiple people: multiple sexual unions between a man and a woman. That these unions are concurrent does not change the fact that the marriage (gamy) is always between the man and the woman. Furthermore, you’ll note that the multiple wives of a man never refer to each other as “my wife.” Generally the term is “sister” or something similar. But polygamy is never a group marriage. It is always multiple concurrent instances of a man and a woman.

The decision to allow or prohibit plural marriage seems like a much bigger change to the fundamental definition of marriage than allowing same-sex couples into the club.
This is only true if you believe one’s sex (male or female) is an accidental feature and not essential to his or her being. If you hold this to be true (and I understand that many do), then, yes, we’re back to arguing whether it’s a good thing to legally sanction gay “marriage.” But the wisdom and experience of the ages (not to mention basic biological observation) strongly suggests that men and women are distinct modes of being human. They are equally persons, but their way of being persons is not the same.

As to your dismissal of the analogies I presented earlier as weak tea, I’ll wait to respond until you present a substantial argument to back up your hand waving.

I’ll bite. In many cultures throughout history, including dozens today, a man may marry two, three, four or more women, cases in which “the durable relationship of a man and a woman in sexual union” does not have a unique status, precisely because those marriages are not solely between one man and one woman. In many cases, a first wife has no say over whether a man enters subsequent marriages. The decision to allow or prohibit plural marriage seems like a much bigger change to the fundamental definition of marriage than allowing same-sex couples into the club. Arguments about the three-fifths clause and pet rights are frankly, weak tea, and shed no light on whether or not gay and lesbian couples (and their children) should be afforded the rights and responsibilities available to straight folk.

Those benefits are more accurately described as privileges or tax breaks. They rarely if ever come in the form of direct subsidies. The more common complaint is that the status quo of public benefits is somewhat biased against married couples.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on whether legally expanding the concept of marriage to include gay couples is beneficial or not. But that is surely where the argument belongs.

It cuts both ways, doesn’t it? Once you turn everything into a legal construction divorced from fundamental realities, anything goes and all rational boundaries disappear. The only thing that remains is what the law says. Reality is determined by those who exercise power.

Furthermore, this discussion of dogs and children points to how I am in fact materially affected by granting the legal status of marriage on gay unions. To the degree that they receive the same benefits from the government that married couples receive today (this is one of their points of contention, as you know) they are adding to the burden of government obligations and, by extension, my tax burden. Whether this is right or wrong, you and I undoubtedly disagree; the uncontestable fact remains, however, that I am affected materially.

I agree with you that there are legal fictions that may be useful. But legal fictions are always suspect, because the government is enforcing something that is false. In some cases this may be necessary (i.e. to adjudicate contests between human beings and commercial entities.) But as you allude to in the case of corporations, these fictions often have unintended and unforeseen consequences. We would do well to think long and hard before enacting any lie as law, particularly when it seeks to change a concept so fundamental as marriage and family. (Not coincidentally, this is one reason why no-fault divorce law is also nefarious; it provides a patina of legality to the breaking of oaths–oaths that find their origin not in legal strictures but in the very nature of human beings.)