[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

And nobody would EVER have to ask a child if they were going to marry a boy or a girl. That doesn't make sense. Most kids aren't even aware of their sexual orientation at a young age (though there are some who are).

Well, thats not necessarily true. We don't know. His expanded concern is having gender confusion as a part of sex education in pulic schools and their effects. I don't agree with him, but I can see what he's saying from his perspective of sexuality being fluid and not fixed. Thts the real lynch pin in both persepectives, IMO.

Oh man...this guy is sexist too...but then his sex argument doesn't make sense. All he's saying is men and women are different. But what does that matter?

I listen to him pretty regularly, and he is not a sexist by any means, he simply recognizes the inherent differences and his tagline is "equality does not mean the same"

Well, in respect to his opinion, he believes that the male, female dichotomy is the best environemnt for raising a child, and the male/male and female/female aren't bad, but they're not the ideal, and society should encourage the ideal. I understand his opinion and even agree that in an ideal world male/female is likely the ideal to raise a child, but this is not an ideal world and if abusive assholes can get married and have kids, so should a healthy gay couple who will likely raise the child much better.

Prager's arguments didn't make any sense and didn't address the issue of equality. However he established in the end that men should be allowed to exclude women and vise versa. So I don't feel he argued anything intelligible.

In defense of the reasoning of his argument argument, he doesn't believe that a name is a barometer of equality, pragmatic rights are. Myself, I think the marriage issue us too often used as a wall or separation instead of a positive establishment for all people.

If you want to make anything stronger, you don't do so by excluding people, you invite them in.