[Instar]

Jack Simth said:
Both assume some particular definition of person, which is very religion-like, ...

What? Defining a person is not religious at all. A living human being is considered a person.

Jack Simth said:
... if not necessarily precisely religious. Should the government be able to dictate what is and is not considered a person? If no, then you can't charge a solipsist with murder or rape; if yes, then it can easily become quite reasonable to put an abortionist on trial for murder.

That applies to the extreme of kiddie porn - some jerk sticking it in a five year old - it does not necessarily apply to a twelve-year-old doing a strip-tease in front of a camera for cash (which is basically what the various task-forces trying to take down the kiddie-porn recruiters fish for).

So you've never heard the long-term social stability question? What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? ...

Anecdotal, and a VERY skewed view of history. There is not a single shred of historical evidence that equates gay marriage to the downfall of society. This line of argument is bunk.

Jack Simth said:
According to one source I've heard (granted, he was a televangalist, ...

Appeal to authority. A televangalist[sic?] is hardly an authority on anything, other than milking the gullible of cash in the name of the Lord.

Jack Simth said:
... and is biased - but then again, everybody's biased to some degree - doesn't necessarily mean that their data is false)...

Yes, actually, it does. I call this evanglist's evidence into doubt. His evidence is more than likely anecdotal and very skewed.

Jack Simth said:
... was three generations. Now consider the Jews. Theirs is pretty much the only culture that has survived relatively intact through multiple millenia of subugation and persecution (of varying severity, granted).

The Irish have Lasted quite a long time under subjugation (up till the 1700s I would bet!). This has hardly any relevance...

Jack Simth said:
They have a lot of rules - religious rules that they live by - which include such things as sanitation, a ban on incest, and a ban on eating pork, to name three.
Now, in modern times, we find that many of these are actually extremely practical health concerns. Thanks to an understanding of germs, we know that people who don't wash regularly are considerably more likely to contract diseases. Thanks to an understanding of genetics, we know that the childeren of incest are considerably more likely to have defects from negative-recessive gene pairs. Thanks to an understanding of biology, we now know that pigs contain a parasite which pigs are immune to, but is devastating to humans if the parasite gets into their systems (sure, it's not certain that you will catch it if you eat pork that still has some surviving parasites, but essentially all pigs carry that parasite, and barring some rather unusual circumstances, eating pork is the only way to pick it up). Many of their practices are present and required (in some form) in most modern societies - theft, murder, rape, a weekly day of rest [Not so. Blue laws are gone in the US, and were immoral to start with], and incest laws, to name a few. Whether you assume their laws were handed down to them by God [God's laws include ones that allow me to rape and get away with it for 50 silver pieces...], or that they evolved over a given length of time as survival factors for a society, it's a bad idea to start dropping portions that are integrated into your society without first running long-term field tests.

How convienent that you mention field tests. Guess what?! Many countries overseas have allowed gay marriage for quite some time. The society hasn't crumbled at all!
So, according to you, immoral and wrong laws ought not be dropped without running tests? Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are quite obviously wrong, but you come out in favor of them with this argument. You're only hurting yourself with that position.

Jack Simth said:

Their's no attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to prohibit them the vote; they aren't being prohibited free speech; they aren't being systemically executed; killing them is still murder; they aren't being prohibited to engage in commerce; they aren't being prohibited to hold jobs (for the most part - there is the military exception to that - but the military is, of necessity, extremely pragmatic when dealing with problems - it's much more efficent to remove the 2% that cause 50% of those around them to lose efficency than it is to train the 50% to not be bothered by it). It's not the blanket denial of rights that your statement above could easily be read to imply. In some ways it's more of a preservation of the language - an object designed to be sat upon with four legs and a back is not a chalkboard; a large, flat chunk of slate mounted on a wall and designed to be repeatedly written on and erased is not a chair; two men in love is not a marriage. In some ways it's trying to prevent a slippery slope - if two men in love can be a marriage, why not three men in love? Or one man and three women? Or a forty-year old man and a thirteen-year old girl? Or ...?

The "slippery slope" argument is crap.

Jack Simth said:

By the exact same token, there is no conflict if religion says "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" while the state says "marriage is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, et cetera". Yet your initial argument was that the state defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was wrong.