"I continue to be disappointed by what is essentially a position dismissing all concerns — even more so because this position hasn't changed one bit since June."
-- me too. Yet I'm referring to your position.

"How does one argue with a perspective that puts aside thousands of words of argument ?"
-- Good question. Again, I'm referring to your argument.

"... and various social-study analyses on the basis of a few acquaintances ?"
-- There have been many social-study analyses that support the equality of gay people (i.e.: AMA, APA). Of course, you do not accept those as relevant or fair - and I feel the same way about the conclusion of Kurtz's findings. Also, the 'acquaintances' thing goes both ways. The fact that there are some gay couples who are decent and monogamous is every bit as relevant or irrelevant to the debate as the fact that there are gay couples who are nasty and promiscuous.

"...declaration that "the living, breathing reality of civil marriage in America" is that it's more about coupling than childbearing ... As I've shown, this is nonsense."
-- It is not nonsense. With regard to that comment, he is correct.

"... and family"
-- the advocates of gay marriage would argue that same-sex couples should not be excluded from forming a legitimate 'family'. One of the issues in this debate is whether the definition of a 'family' can include the existence of a same-sex couple.

"... the vision of marriage in academia or in the blue-state jet-set in which Sullivan lives simply don't constitute a plausible — or sane — model for the whole of society."
-- So anyone who supports the legitimization of gay relationships does not understand the model of marriage for the whole of society. .... OK.

"Add to this that middle and working class folks who argue for gay marriage seem disproportionately likely to have had bad experiences with marriage"
--- Can I see the statistics that is based on this or is this based on a few 'acquaintances' ?

"... if they took to the time to address others' concerns more extensively than with reference to friends and shows of hand in the law-school classroom."
-- That will happen soon after your side takes the time to address others' concerns more extensively than reference to those who support your side and show of hands in the Church (or Synagogue).

I don't mean in any way to offend or diss the teaching or beliefs in the Church. But my point is this - that the those against gay marriage have resorted to the demagoguery of the legal profession since, as you have said, many of the vocal supporters are legal minds and, of course, it is judges that have moved it forward. So, again, I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in the attack on the 'law-school' classroom your side as opposed to the attacks on the Church, by some on the other side.

I think you and I have been through this before - the law versus The Law.

I'm sorry, Mark, but I just don't see how most of what you've written applies to this post or, more to the point, my general handling of the issue. To my recollection, I've addressed every argument put forward by supporters of gay marriage, very often sympathetically.

"And so are you" just does not constitute an argument. And the idea that I've been vague or limited in my exploration of this issue is just incorrect.

(For the record, I don't base my opinion on homosexuals whom I know — not all of whom are the "religious-right nightmare" type.)

"I don't understand how letting gay people get married threatens heterosexual marriage...." Sure, Prof. Reynolds seems to be a bright guy. But isn't it kind of... well... stupid to throw a claim like that into a position statement? Abstract it from it's context, and it turns into something like this: "I don't know what I'm talking about, because I haven't really thought about this, but I'm standing firm anyway." It seems to me that a really smart person would go from "I don't understand how..." to "Therefore, I'm not taking a position until I do understand, pro or con." But, hey, we like things to make sense in small-town America. And I do really, sincerely hope I have been nuanced enough for the remarkably high standards in these here comment boxes.

I've simply tried to use some of the same arguments you wrote in this *specific* post, and, metaphorically, put a mirror up to you.

I'll be clearer.

You wrote: "I continue to be disappointed by what is essentially a position dismissing all concerns — even more so because this position hasn't changed one bit since June."
-- First, to whom is this disappointment directed at ? Prof. Reynolds ? Sullivan ? Rauch ? All gay-marriage advocates ? Second, why would their position change ? Has yours ?

"To my recollection, I've addressed every argument put forward by supporters of gay marriage, very often sympathetically."
-- Fair enough - I agree. Who are you specifically referring to as having the "perspective that puts aside thousands of words of argument" ?

"And so are you" just does not constitute an argument.
--- I was simply asking that you address these points - which happen to be more-or-less the same words you used but pointed in a different direction.

"And the idea that I've been vague or limited in my exploration of this issue is just incorrect."
--- I won't accuse you of being vague. But I feel you are at times limited in your exploration in the sense that you seem not willing to explore anything that might result in some concession towards the side you clearly oppose. Not unlike any advocate .. including Sullivan.

I have my current view on this but mine is not yet a 'position' I have taken and I do not consider myself an 'advocate'. In other words, I am still willing to be persuaded on this issue.

To me, this 'freedom' (or lack of vision ?) allows me to see the hypocrisy used by both sides that 'advocates' may not necessarily see.

I don't think you are in that position. But you can prove me wrong. As a married man with children, I'm used to that.

Mark,

I think it's clear that I'm referring to Prof. Reynolds's argument, here (and, of course, anybody who takes a similar "don't see anything wrong with it" approach). Moreover, the complaint about the lack of change isn't about a consistent position, but about an unexplored basis for that position.

But I feel you are at times limited in your exploration in the sense that you seem not willing to explore anything that might result in some concession towards the side you clearly oppose.

— I honestly don't believe this to be true, although it's possible that I've thought things and formed opinions that I haven't put into writing, at least not demonstrative writing. That'll change in the near future, but I think you can certainly find such sympathy and concessions in my writing on the topic.

I didn't mean to say that you are not fair and do not show sympathy for those who oppose your view. You do.

As you referred to, there is a basis to the support of gay-marriage. At the very least, one must acknowledge the existence of legitimate arguments on BOTH sides. The primary question is whether the pros outweigh the cons.

As an analogy, let me use the debate over the war in Iraq. I supported it. (actually my view is that we should go into North Korea tomorrow - but I digress) But I do acknowledge there were legitimate arguments against it. What offended me was those who said that those who did not support the war were anti-American, did not believe in freedom, and other rhetorical garbage. To be sure, some of the anti-war groups do fall into that, but the reality is that the decision of whether to invade of Iraq was far from a no-brainer - and the side-taking on that issue seemed to have more to do with partisanship than ideology. Now I don't feel this way about the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11 and personally fail to see how reasonable people could be against that action - but I digress - again.

In response to ELC's comment:
"I don't understand how letting gay people get married threatens heterosexual marriage."
--- I think I can safely say that Prof. Reynolds MEANT that he doesn't *believe* that letting gay people ... I really don't believe he was saying that he had not thought about it at all. But maybe I lack the proper 'understanding' of the semantics involved.

Mr Reynolds is a bright man, I go to his blog often, but on moral matters he is a nulity, a zero on the left. He is a-moral, so any posting on moral or religious matters by him carries very little weight with people who know some Moral Theology. Also, I have the suspition that he is a little bit anti Christian, although he conceals it very well, perhaps out of love of fairness, he doesn't want to appear slanted on that, but he is so consistently silent in good news for Christians, for example, that I have inferred that small bias in his thinking.