Joe, you’re setting yourself up here. So while bypassing the issue of abortion (for now), let’s go straight to where you’re leading with your chin:

Conservatives by and large oppose gay marriage because they see the benefits accorded to married couples as privileges meant to support those who will give us our next generation. That, in most cases, will be married men and women.

And seeing the family as a pillar of society on which its future depends, we resist giving those privileges to groups that cannot bear children naturally.

Got some news for you: I happen to know a few couples who “cannot bear children naturally.” And I bet you do, too.

Beyond that, though, I know several people who chose not to have kids, which appears to be a growing trend. By the way, some of those folks count themselves as being very conservative.

So, shall society discriminate against them?

Well, perhaps not against those who want kids but can’t have them. But - what about those married couples who specifically decide not to have children? The number of such people is increasing. And you might characterize that as a pretty selfish decision, particularly if the whole point of marriage is kids.

So are we justified from a societal standpoint - from a policy standpoint; from a tax standpoint, and from a moral standpoint - in discriminating against them?

I suspect you’d say no. They get a free pass, frankly, because they’re straight.

But how can we say “no” and continue to pretend it’s all about propagating the family, when in fact we’re admitting that it isn’t?

This is the point we come back to time, and time, and time again. If we’re banning gays from marrying because they would undermine the institution, what are we going to do about the straights who are already undermining the institution?

You know, let’s stop hanging out on the ramparts, trying to repel the invaders who are inside the castle already. Don’t conservatives believe that the best defense is a good offense? If so, if it’s all about the institution of marriage - then certainly conservatives wish to see increased penalties for divorce; certainly conservatives want new laws (or constitutional amendments) punishing those straights who have failed the holy institution by failing to have kids.

But conservatives aren’t stumping for this. Which shows the folly of trying to use logical arguments for what is, at its core, an emotional point of view.

Conservative traditionalists wants gays barred from marriage because they don’t think it seems normal. It’s not “right,” “right” being another term for, “we’ve always done it that way.” In other words: Ick.

You know, fine. Whatever. But can we please, right now, stop drawing these lines that we have to quickly erase every time someone points out the inconsistency? There can be no logical consistency to the conservative position on gay marriage because in the end, it’s not based on logic; the logic gets flimsier and flimsier the longer you contemplate it.

You might say: Conservatism is about defending tradition, and gay marriage runs counter to tradition. Which it does. And in the end, that is the conservative argument, regardless of the logical fallacies in which they try to dress it. Because traditional marriage has indeed served society well, historically. It’s just that times have changed - and gays aren’t the only ones redefining what marriage is supposed to mean.