I think the objective person is able to see both pro-choice and pro-life naming conventions for what they are. The names were chosen in part to make use of the pre-fix "pro" in order to have a positive rather than negative spin. And the key words "choice" and "life" were also chosen because they sound like things people would support in a general context. The names each have good and bad aspects in terms of descriptive value. Trying at this date to change only one of the names is a transparent attempt to influence through name association. I would advise to argue on the merits and forget about the name change hi-jinks.

Perhaps I should attempt to explain the specific "use" I intended when I brought this up. This was in reaction to Ebonmuse's implicit question to me whether I agree that the state has "no business whatsoever making discriminatory decisions about what constitutes marriage". This is kind of like the old "have you stopped beating your wife" question. I cannot answer Ebon's question because I don't accept the framing of the question in terms of discrimination.

If we could reword the question slightly - whether the state has business in making decisions about what constitutes marriage - in that case, I can answer, and I'll answer that yes, I do think this is the state's business. If the state cannot define marriage, it has no business recognizing them for anybody.

From the OP:

Members of the religious right want to deny gay people one of the most basic rights of all: the right of two people in love to have that relationship recognized and spend their lives together, with the same benefits we grant to heterosexual couples.

At this point, I see that before Ebon and I can think about discussing specific pros and cons for redefining marriage, we need to think about what marriage even is, since personally, the words "most basic right of all" would never have come to mind to describe marriage. I also do not accept that the purpose of marriage is to "recognize a love relationship." Until there is some agreement on what marriage is, there can be no intelligent discussion about who should be allowed to get married.

For the record, I don't think that up to this point I've given any specific answers (and certainly no convincing ones) about what marriage is, or about whether gays should be married, nor do I intend to do so in this thread, since my purpose here is twofold. First, I want to encourage people to think about what marriage is. Second, I want to make the point that there is room for disagreement here within the atheist camp.

On this second point, at least one person above, perhaps a few, seems to be saying that any argument against redefining marriage is bigotry - almost by definition. This is not unlike the Christian saying that any argument for is the deception of the Devil. I reject both forms of dogmatism.

Further, your explanation actually agrees with me in part, in that you accept that telling Jane and Jill that they can't marry is "discriminat[ory] against them for being gay", i.e. their sexual preference. So, I'm at a loss as to how you can tell me that I'm being dishonest yet that you agree with what I said, that it is discrimination based on sexual preference.

He presented the issue of gay marriage in terms of gender discrimination, rather than discrimination againast gays, which is what is usually done. It isn't of any particular use to do it that way, but I found it interesting.

In other words: say that Jane and Jill want to get married, but they are not allowed to. That would be discriminating against them for being gay.

However, you can look at it this way: John is allowed to marry Jane, but Jill is not. So, Jill is not allowed to do something that John is allowed to do because she is a woman and John is a man. Thus, you could say that Jill is being discriminated against for her gender.

As you can see, it is far from "the old gay people can be straight if they want to argument".

I wonder if gay marriage could get more traction if it were presented this way? It seems to me that people who woudl be convicned by this are already convinced by the "discrimination against gays" argument, so I don't think it woudl make much of a difference.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/22/why-does-marriage-exist.htm

It doesn't quite have the depth I was looking for, but it's nice to see an argument which doesn't boil down to the sinner vs the biggot, which is not an argument at all.

I will remain agnostic as to whether you're a nice person in person. Heck, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt. However, since you seem especially prone to misrepresent me in this medium, I think I'll cut my losses, and continue to let you carry on the impression that I'm not willing to back up what I say (or what I don't say.)

Now, want to answer my question: do you have a cogent argument as to why the state has a compelling reason to make the distinction between hetero and gay marriages?

To answer your question: no, I don't want to answer your question. I'll even go so far as to say that I don't believe that I've said that the state does have a compelling reason to deny marriage rights to straight or gay men wanting to marry another man. What I am saying is that it is wrong to make personal political positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage part of the "Athiest platform."