Gay Marriage Arguments Ignite Rallies

omshaantih, Agreed!

I could easily sit back and say it's all ok, as long as it doesn't bother me and my family, but I would be kidding myself, because Everything our Church and Govt. allows to fly by directly affects me and my family, and how we are suppose to Think. I personally think they should all be shipped to an island far away, so that population can die off naturally. So piss on em'.

It's Veil, Disgusting, Immoral, Satanic, and just plain evil. Welcome to the New Babylon, and the Agnostic church, where as it is written throughout, Good is considered Evil, and Evil considered Good.
Tell everyone one thing, even if you support Homos, (and a lot more do than actually queer) You will have one hefty price to pay when it comes to meeting your maker. This is an abomination unto Him, and if you don't like it, ....,......, ......... I'll quote a Billy Joe Shaver song, "If you don't Love Jesus, Go to Hell"

or not

ecopaint do you have anything relevant to say?

"I am the most peaceful person in the universe! But this just really upsets me because Homos are trying to destroy the world"
-This is a contradictory statement. And you're a hypocrite.

"I could easily sit back and say it's all ok, as long as it doesn't bother me and my family, but I would be kidding myself, because Everything our Church and Govt. allows to fly by directly affects me and my family, and how we are suppose to Think."
-How does it affect you and your family? Because you're nosy little busy bodies who feel so inefficient you have to hide behind the glory of your "God" and tell everyone else how evil they are? Yeah I can see how this might fuck your day up.
And how does what the government and church allow affect how you think? How much of a brainless sheep are you that you need updates from authority on how to think?

"I personally think they should all be shipped to an island far away, so that population can die off naturally. So piss on em'."
-And we'll find a separate island for you and all the other religious wing nuts so you can chastise, judge, condemn, sentence, and sacrifice whoever you wish. (Oh yeah, your God calls for sacrifice, it's in the Old Testament)

"It's Veil, Disgusting, Immoral, Satanic, and just plain evil. Welcome to the New Babylon, and the Agnostic church, where as it is written throughout, Good is considered Evil, and Evil considered Good."
-Gays love more than hate. Seems like hate is the only language you speak.

"Tell everyone one thing, even if you support Homos, (and a lot more do than actually queer) You will have one hefty price to pay when it comes to meeting your maker."
-This is the classic Christian defense. They rant and rave about how when you die, you will know how wrong you've been and this will somehow scare you into believing their backwards ideals. There is no Hell, it's here on Earth, coexisting with you.

This is an abomination unto Him, and if you don't like it, ....,......, ......... I'll quote a Billy Joe Shaver song, "If you don't Love Jesus, Go to Hell"
-Fuck Billy Shaver and fuck you.

Swallow a razor.

rejected much?

"A. Marriage is not a privilege, nor right, since it cannot be taken away from you by the government.

More like marriage is a tradition/practice that we do to unify two people."

Here's the problem.

Legally speaking, it's a binary choice.

It's either a right or a privilege. It can either be taken away arbitrarily or it can't.

If it can't be taken away, then it's a right.

"Tradition" is not law, it has no legal soundness.

If something is going to apply to law, it needs to be one of these two things. And whichever one it is, it needs to obey the constitution.

In other words, you cannot provide an unequal service. The 14th amendment does not allow you to do that.

"Like I said in (A), marriage is a tradition that has been past down through generations to unify two people.

Reading the bible one day made me realize this.

The idea that Jewish and Christian scriptures/bibles convey is "re"uniting male and female. It's not about becoming more intimate."

You're religious, awesome.

I'm not, and my constitution protects me from people like you.

The idea that your personal religious beliefs should dictate how our government works is absurd. What about everyone else?

And that's why we have the first amendment.

So this whole argument is irrelevant.

Marriage is not a property that is owned by any religious establishment. It is secular law.

"The defenition of being homosexual is "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex ."

Which, I think, is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception.

What that means is that you desire someone that has the same complextion, same sexual orientation and anatomy as you do.

Or, you deceive yourselves and think that the sexual same is the sexual other.

So yes, you probably can argue that I see homosexuals as being people with some psychological disorder.

Bu that doesn't mean I don't see then as anything less than a human being."

Yes it does.

You have just characterized these people as being mentally ill on no evidence.

Now, why would you think something is wrong or a mental disease when no evidence suggests that it is?

Because you DO NOT LIKE THEM.

At the very least, these people make you uncomfortable.

The idea that homosexuality is narcissism is fucking insulting.

Plus it's inconsistent, what about feminine women who seek out masculine men or masculine men who seek out feminine women. That is a common (although not universal) trait of homosexual relationships.

So no, theory debunked. The guy that wrote that was an asshole.

Plus if it were true you would see narcissism in the relationship and you'd also see it apply to heterosexuals as well.

And again, even if that were true (and it's not) how does that make homosexuality wrong?

Would you deny marriage to people who engage in scat sex or S&M? Their sexual behaviors are arguably far more out there.

Part I

"But we DON'T make laws just because it's brought up! We ask the people their opinion. We offer them a chance to vote and deny a law before it is actually talked about. We give the public a chance to speak out. That was what our country was founded on."

No, we don't.

That's why we HAVE a Supreme Court, because not everything SHOULD be delegated to the people.

This isn't a "Socrates scares me so let's make him drink hemlock" Democracy. This is a "I don't agree with what you say but I'll die to defend your right to say it" Constitutional Republic.

In a Constitutional Republic, especially ours which has an emphasis on individual freedom, you are given certain inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from you save a constitutional amendment.

But I'll spare you the technicalities and argue in a way that you might be able to relate to.

Was interracial marriage put to a vote? What would have happened if it was?

"Right not, I'm not trying to get on your nerves(though, I probably have)"

I would have killed myself by now if you people like you got on my nerves that badly.

Really, I don't care.

"I'm just trying to make sense on what your trying to say. I'm trying to have an educated argument, even if you really want to say I'm uneducated."

I'm vehemently denying what you have to say because it is demonstrably ignorant of the facts and in some cases patently absurd.

But don't think that I'm trying to silence you. Even when I'm being really intense, I'm just trying to emphasize a point.

"What your implying is that the government can end that privilege, without your consent."

That's the DEFINITION of a privilege, something which can be taken away.

You don't seem to understand that.

"I'm saying it's a privilege because you can end it whenever you want."

But that's not the definition of a privilege, neither in the English language sense of the word or the legal definition.

Ending something is the same as not practicing your rights.

I.E. voting is a right, but you don't have to vote. Free speech is a right, but you can end your blog, your publication or your demonstration and become a recluse at any given time.

To put it simply, your definition is WRONG. I've already demonstrated why that's so in my other post, but I hope the above explanation clarifies.

"To do something a certain way just because you want to doesn't make it any more right."

Doesn't make it wrong either. Being gay isn't wrong and if it is you haven't demonstrated how.

So this point is irrelevant.

"Remember, many homosexuals become gay because of their bad experiences with the opposite gender."

That's demonstrably untrue. I mean just literally that's a myth. A very damaging one as well.

If that were the case, then you'd see remission later in life or after therapy. You don't. In fact when homosexuality was considered a mental disease irreparable damage was often done to gay people and they didn't revert.

They didn't revert because it wasn't psychological damage that caused their homosexuality.

Part II

"Our bodies aren't made to be homosexual. It's in our genes to be attracted to the opposite sex. It's been scientifically proven."

Au contrare, it's a biological fact that people can be born homosexual.

It can do with brain chemistry or hormonal differences, but it is by no means "unnatural" to be homosexual.

Homosexuality is readily prevalent all across the animal kingdom, and we are no exception.

Also, attraction is NOT in your genes, that hasn't been proven at all. If that were the case, homosexuality would also be genetic and it's clearly not since homosexual children are born to heterosexual parents and vice versa.

By the way, by default the vast majority of humans are bisexual.

Also, even if that wasn't true and homosexuality was some kind of psychological disorder, that's STILL not a choice any more than being OCD or ADHD is.

Furthermore, even if that were true, what makes it WRONG?

"Why? Because our bodies are made for that."

This is why you're an ignorant cunt and I ridicule you constantly.

Do you have any idea how ignorant and horrible that statement is?

What do you think these people do? Secretly think about the opposite sex while they're fucking the same sex? Are they "lying" to themselves?

I might as well say you're secretly gay, it would be just as valid an argument.

It's true that plenty of homosexual people fall more on the bisexual scale then on fully homosexual, but the same is true of heterosexuals.

By your logic, you could "catch the gay" by hanging out with gays.

"Male on male doesn't go together. No babies or future generations are born. Same with girls."

Gay people have children.

FUCKING GET OVER IT.

I am so tired of this argument.

Lesbians can choose their own father or get in-vitro fertilization and gays can choose a mother to impregnate on their behalf.

Plus, who CARES?

It's not as if we're advocating for people to BE gay, it's not a DISEASE.

Can you not see that? The existence of gay rights doesn't MAKE people gay AND vice versa.

God, you claim to be tolerant of gays but in reality you really are just a total cunt that sees them as less than human.

How can you say something that stupid with a straight face?

"Not ONCE is it said in the constitution that marriage is a right."

Like you would know, having NOT READ IT.

Firstly, the California constitution and the California Supreme Court disagree with you on that. Look at their arguments if you think I'm making this up.

Furthermore, not every right in existence is defined in the constitution because then we'd have 600 amendments.

Look up the ninth amendment, it's what guarantees marriage as a right.

And what is this argument anyway?! If marriage isn't a right, IT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY FROM -YOU-.

"I guess my point about Arabia was very irrelevant."

Horrifically ignorant more like it, but thank you for conceding the point.

"See? I'm not, as you call it, Ignorant. I accept other peoples insights. It's just when their insights contradict mine is when I need to see what they really base their argument on and why they think that way."

No, you're pretty fucking ignorant. But at least you're trying not to be. Some social conservatives will deny the truth when it's right in front of their face, so you got a one up on them. But that's not saying much.

Still, at least you listen to an argument. But you definitely need to research logic and critical thinking. Read the constitution while you're at it.

Typically I'm a grammar nazi also, so I can't really really fault Saladin for taking a small jab at the incorrect versions of "their" and "they're". However, I can say that given how long Air1306's addition was to this thread, it might be a little too nit picky. We're not writing professional debating papers, but I admit that I also get carried away sometimes because I get used to people making arguments, valid or invalid, with the grammar and writing skills of an eight year old.

Please note, I'm not really trying to come in on one side or the other in the grammar issue in this particular case, I just thought it would be fun to add my own two cents to it.

Sure thing Varex, It's great that, unlike other people, you explain and apologize for your actions(not saying they're wrong).

Part I

This is gonna be an easy reply. All you did was repeat points I already refuted.

"I hope you don't condemn this example like you did with my older example of my friends. Remember: this is an EXAMPLE. I'm not saying I'm ignoring everything else."

Relevance relevance relevance.

I repeated it three time in the hope that it won't go unnoticed.

Why is that RELEVANT?

What does it matter that there are some people, even if it was MOST people, that are uncaring?

That has nothing to do with why we make laws. Whether it's one person or one hundred million, we make laws when an issue is brought up.

"I'm saying it's a privilege because you can end it whenever you want."

EHHH, wrong answer.

That doesn't make something not a right, I don't even see the logic behind your point.

Something is either a privilege or a right. It's a boolean choice.

If it's a privilege, the state has the right to do whatever the fuck they want with it on any arbitrary basis that doesn't contradict the constitution.

So if your life isn't a right, then the state could eliminate you at any time without due process of law. The same would be true with your marriage.

So obviously, you don't think these things are privileges.

But that's arguing this backwards, let's argue forwards now.

The state defines marriage as a right. So it's fucking irrelevant that you don't THINK it is one. It's already been decided that it is. So unless you want to change marriage to make it a privilege this point is irrelevant.

"The 14th amendment was passed, if you DIDN'T KNOW, Was passed because US wanted to protect the right of whom? FORMER SLAVES! So your argument saying that it has NOTHING to do with the slaves is just downright wrong."

I cannot believe you are going to continue arguing this point, you should have taken my advice. Now I'm gonna force it on you.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY -PERSON- WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE --EQUAL-- PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."

The 14th amendment has been AMENDED.

Get with the fucking times man.

Your point about what it "was originally" for is totally fucking irrelevant. AND it's not even TRUE.

It was designed as a civil rights bill. At the time, it was only ethnic minorities they were considering, yes. But then they realized that they needed to protect WOMEN as well, so they changed it to PERSON.

Even then, it's a civil rights amendment. Its purpose was to offer equal protection, its exact target at the time doesn't change what its PURPOSE is.

And again, get with the fucking times, it was CHANGED for a reason.

Part II

"So now, we go to your argument that I'm making it up when I say that pedophilia is in Europe a LOT, look at Saudi Arabia( a part of Europe, i believe. If I'm wrong, then let's just focus on Saudi Arabia),"

OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.

SAUDI ARABIA IS IN FUCKING -ARABIA-. That's THE MIDDLE FUCKING EAST.

LOL, seriously dude, I got a good laugh at this one.

But ignoring that, Saudi Arabia is like the one of fucking least progressive countries on the planet! Women are KILLED there for ADULTERY. If anything, they agree more with the bible than they do with anything else.

And FYI, they are RABIDLY anti-west and anti-Europe. They fund terrorist attacks against us when they are decrying our "godlessness."

Seriously dude, you're painfully ignorant. Fucking educate yourself.

I mean, at least you're thinking for yourself, but god damn.

"And to get mad because I spelled something wrong and I used incorrect grammar is useless. You know what I meant!"

I didn't get mad, nothing in my post was mad.

Seriously, I don't get mad over comments on current. People tend to read comments in the mood that they're in, so they project themselves on the text and read someone elses' comments as however they're currently feeling.

I was just poking fun of you, hence the "grammar nazi rant over" part of my sentence. I wasn't making it out to be something against you, it's just a pet peeve.

Part I
"I personally don't think homosexual marriage is right.
First of all, I have nothing against gays. I have about 2 friends that are gay, and they're some my greatest friends."

Please tell your friends to their face that they can't get married because you find them to be morally unacceptable.

I'd be surprised if they didn't get a little bit tense with you.

"Second, what I think is funny...blahblahblah"

Anecdotal evidence, awesome.

Let's ignore the fucking rest of the people who DO care and focus on my friends who only care a little bit.

That's obviously a relevant point.

"What people don't really get is that marriage is not a RIGHT. It's a privilege."

Can you have your right to marriage revoked at any arbitrary time by the state for doing anything they see as a crime worthy of removing that license?

No.

So by who's definition is this a privilege?

Yours, no one elses'. Certainly not the state's. So this point is just your fucking opinion, not a legal argument.

Unless you're willing to submit your own marriage as a "privilege" that can be revoked if you turn in your taxes a day late or get a DUI.

"People don't need to marry to be happy. I mean, just look at all the singles and all the people who are just boyfriend/girlfriend living together."

That's fucking obviously irrelevant, next point please.

"If you argue that the constitution says "All men/women are created equal, you then, don't know history. Remember, they put that saying in the constitution because of the African American slavery that was going on in the states. It WASN'T because of marriage "rights"."

FUCKING READ THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

IT DOES NOT JUST APPLY TO SLAVERY YOU MORON.

It's purpose is to ensure EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

It fucking fits this case perfectly, a group of citizens have no been offered the protection of the laws based on state discrimination.

Fail, again.

"but then saying that marriage between homosexuals being wrong doesn't apply today just because a lot of the other things don't apply today is just downright simple minded."

Do you not understand logic?

We can look at the bible and agree not all of it is wise to be followed without a reason to.

Therefore, we can pick and choose what we find to be acceptable from it and what we don't.

But this point fails for an even BIGGER reason.

THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT.

Part II

"Many countries there who approved of gay marriage have also approved after that that 30 year olds marrying 10 year olds and having sexual relations with them is ok. Many also have sexual acts with those who are dead, and yet, it's "ok". We condemn those acts here in America, yet homosexual marriage is ok, and you STILL think that our country is going to be OK?"

You just fucking made that up.

Britain has some of the strongest hatred of pedophilia around, and most other European nations hate it as much as we do. And NO fucking country approves of necrophilia.

So again, you just fucking made that up. It's kind of pathetic that you need to make shit up to prove a point.

"My perspective summary: People who believe that homosexuality is a right...their wrong."

-They're-, not their. Their is possessive. Grammar nazi rant over.

Your opinion is uninformed and irrational.

You haven't demonstrated why it is that your opposition is wrong, you've just made a series of irrelevant points which are almost entirely based on ignorance of the facts.

The rest are just straight fucking illogical.

I mean, what are you trying to say here? Your own sexuality is a privilege which the state has the right to take away?

Have you even bothered to read the fucking constitution? Do you even care? Or did you just want to put down your two cents regardless of whether or not what you were saying makes any sense?

Your stance on this issue is contingent on a single point I made in this rebuttal.

If marriage is a privilege, the state needs to demonstrate how and why it is a right not reserved by the people. To do that, it would need to change the Federal Constitution.

If it did, your marriage would also be a privilege which by extension the state could also arbitrarily take away as it saw fit as long as the standards were the same for everyone else.

Actually, I just realized something.

EVEN IF it WAS a privilege. It STILL would be protected by the 14th amendment.

A driver's license is a privilege, you still can't deny without due process of law or on a blanket discriminatory basis.

So no, just kidding, your argument fails on all accounts unless you're arguing that marriage should be a private religious ceremony that no one gets any legal benefits from. In which case you would also be destroying your own marriage.

And just because you don't hate gays doesn't mean you aren't in the moral wrong on this issue.

You find them disgusting because a piece of scripture out of Leviticus and social norms tell you so, there's nothing moral about that.

wtf? who the hell has ABOUT TWO gay friends? who the hell has about two anything? it's either you have two or you don't. from then on you might as well have the most convincing argument against gay marriage and no one would care because of your obvious b.s.

Brainwashed? Oh my holy hell that is classic! I find it amazing that people who honestly believe certain things, like gay marriage is evil, can come up with some of the most ridiculous bullshit when they can't make a logical argument.

Yeah "kiddies", turn away from the "brainwashing" of education and listen to people like this dude, then you can write things like this...

It is funny how the least intelligent people like to proclaim their clarity of thought even as they fail to produce a coherent sentence.

Give me a f**king break.

...really...the smell of napalm in the morning...I hope this means homeboy just set his computer on fire...parroting silly, inane statements gets you nowhere and makes you look bad.

what's the point of that?

What's at stake here is a basic precept of our Republic, whether or not the people have the right to deny rights to others by writing shit into our Constitution.

They didn't have a 2/3's majority, so even if you agree with changing our constitution by vote in practice, the decision doesn't make sense.

Personally, I don't think they do. We can't just let any idiot put something on the ballot that drastically changes the basic rights offered by our government pass with 50% of a vote plus 1. Mind you not even 50% of citizens or even eligible voters, just 50% of whoever votes.

Most people are apathetic, dumb and spiteful. With a good ad campaign that uses the right rhetoric (look at the victim's rights bill that passed) you can pass almost anything.

But that doesn't mean that it's going to make sense.

My favorite is Prop 1. These people put the bullet train on the ballot and it got passed but the state has no way to pay for it!

Clearly, if there is going to be some form of direct democracy, it needs to be done in a meaningful way that isn't going to sabotage the government.

Plus by this logic we should have given Brown vs. Board of Education or Interracial Marriage or the Civil Rights act a vote.

Sometimes the majority of people are just fucking dead wrong and shouldn't be listened to.

Don't talk about things you clearly don't understand.

I'll bet you've never read the constitution outside of when you had to refute people using it against you.

Banning gay marriage is a direct affront to the ninth and (mainly) fourteenth amendments.

There are ideological elements to the movement, arguably far more rooted at its cause, but it IS a constitutional issue.

But you don't care right? You just want to put down your opinion while subversively hiding the fact that you hate gays.

It's not like you're fooling anyone.

You're right, it does have something to do with the constitution, just probably not the way you think it does.

Saladin, speaking for me? You are clueless about my beliefs so don't even try to speculate. Please carry on with your self-indulgence in this anything but objective venue.

And your utter inability to make a point or a refutation is self-defeating.

You might as well have just said that my statements were true if that's all you have to offer.

See my other post, I am not going to explain it twice.

FlyingFaders, you're just a hateful moron and everyone who reads the crap you write thinks so.

Good luck changing things with that approach, smallgod.

If it's not worth repeating, it's not worth saying.

Technically speaking you're right, the U.S. is defined as a Democratic Republic. Hence the Democratic-Republican party that split eons ago into the parties that exist today.

But what you actually get to vote on is quite limited, we are way more of a Republic than we are a democracy.

Democracy is direct control by the people, a republic is control by representatives such as senators, etc.

Other than local and state initiatives, you vote on nothing that controls the government. You elect qualified people to do that for you.

My point being is that we're not a direct democracy for a reason. The wisdom of a Republic is far more apparent.

I get your point.

When gays wanted it.

Then suddenly the trailer park ten minute shotgun wedding became sacred.

Gay people already have exactly the same rights as straight people, they want those rights expanded. Call it what it is at least.

Uh no, it's THE SAME RIGHTS.

Here's how this works.

Straight people can get married, gay people can't.

We're trying to establish the same rights that straight people have for gay people, there is no extension in offering the same service,

An expansion would be saying that gay people get twice the tax benefits of straight people for getting married, and it would be unconstitutional too.

Do yourself a favor and don't lie about why you believe what you do, it's not like you're fooling anyone.

You are mistaken, in every state I can think of, there is only one set of rules/restrictions about who you can marry. Its not dependent on your orientation, its the same for everyone. Cite me an exception.

So your argument is that because the LBGT population is equally discriminated against, it is OK? That doesn't hold water. The fact is that not all Americans have equal rights. The hetero crowd and the LBGT community have unequal rights.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument is like saying that if every state said the Chinese couldn't drive cars, that would be OK because it was that rule everywhere.

Yes, you misunderstand. You make the "equality" argument, saying "gays don't have the same rights".

I am saying they have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else, they just don't like them.

For example, in most states, you can marry one human being, of appropriate age, of the opposite gender, to whom you are not related. Those rules are applied uniformly and equally. So the the equality argument does not hold water.

What you REALLY want is to change the restrictions on WHO you can marry. So its a matter of definition, NOT discrimination, equality, or civil rights, and as such the DEFINITION of marriage is up to the electorate. Not really a constitutional issue.

To say its discrimination would be the same as someone who wants to marry someone underage, or their dog, or their sister saying that. Ultimately its up to the people via elected officials to decide what restrictions are on marriage, and the constitution specifies that it must be applied to everyone.

So, back to my question, show me a state where they have DIFFERENT restrictions on who you can marry based on your sexual preferences? THAT would be discrimination, but I can't find any examples of that. Can you?

First, a lack of gay marriage is not equal rights because people who are homosexual cannot marry people to whom they are either attracted or in love with. Heterosexual people can get married to people that they are attracted to, love, and would want to raise kids with (be those kids adopted or not).

Now, to address the point of, "To say its discrimination would be the same as someone who wants to marry someone underage, or their dog, or their sister saying that. Ultimately its up to the people via elected officials to decide what restrictions are on marriage, and the constitution specifies that it must be applied to everyone."

The first two mentioned, someone underaged and a dog, are not legitimate concerns in this nation because of one word. Consent. Children are not able to give consent in such matters because they are not legally adults, and marriage by law either needs for those who are being married to consent to the marriage, or a legal guardian to do so. Animals are not able to give consent because they are animals. Most are not capable of any true form of communication required to give consent, and none that we are aware of are capable of understanding the concept.

Also, by making it illegal for two consenting adults to marry based upon their sexual orientation is not really any different from preventing two consenting adults from marrying based upon their skin color. Many homosexual people are biologically homosexual. No choice, they just are what they are. Yes, some people do make a choice, but many do not. So if it is biological, then preventing homosexual people to marry because they are different is like telling a black person he/she can't marry a white person because they are biologically different.

"First, a lack of gay marriage is not equal rights because people who are homosexual cannot marry people to whom they are either attracted or in love with. Heterosexual people can get married to people that they are attracted to, love, and would want to raise kids with (be those kids adopted or not). "

Where is that specified in the law? The law does not entitle anyone to marry "who they love or attracted to" that is not a "right" for gays OR straights. There are only restrictions on who you can and can't marry and they are the same for everyone. If the law said "A heterosexual can marry someone they are attracted to but a gay person may not" then it would be a constitutional/equal rights/civil rights argument, but that's not how the law reads in any state I am aware of.

Your consent argument:
My point was not about consent, it was meant to show that wanting to marry someone you are not allowed to by restrictions in the law, requires you to change the definition of marriage in the law -- again NOT an equal rights issue, the rights are already equal, and the law is applied equally. Gays have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender, just as straight people do. The fact that its not the right they want is technically irrelevant. But they can't argue for equal rights, because they are equal.

On your interracial marriage argument:
This law was prejudicial because it was applied unevenly across races. A white man could not marry a black woman, but he could otherwise marry a woman, making it a restriction unequally applied across race. That has constitutional restrictions, unlike lifestyle habits or preferences.

If it is not too similar to changing horse in mid stream, I'd like to change the tactic of my argument at least a bit.

Now to the argument that homosexual couples have the same rights as people who are married, therefor the rights are equal, let's look at one issue. Adoption. Now whether or not homosexual couples should have the right to adopt is another similar, and still divided, issue. I am under the impression, and I will admit that this could be a mistaken impression, that there is a much higher percentage of homosexual couples as opposed to heterosexual couples who are denied adoption in the early paperwork screening phase. From my impression, this is not because there is something in the paperwork that screams unfit as parents, but because some how the system picks up on the idea that the couple is homosexual. I do not know if there is a question asking directly about sexual orientation on adoption papers, or if they just ask for spouse or significant others name when filling out the paperwork. But, I am curious about the check all that apply. Is there just a box for single, married or divorced, or is there also a box for civil union? If there is a box for civil union then that right there could be an immediate requirement for disqualification in some public officials eyes. Realistically if anyone can get a civil union, but only heterosexuals can get married, do you think that enough heterosexual couples are going to get a civil union as opposed to a marriage to make the majority think, "Oh, that person is in a civil union, so they could be either strait or gay."? People have ideas and isms (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.) that they have learned over the course of their lives. It doesn't matter if they are a public servant or not, people will still have preconceptions. Most of those preconceptions will forever apply to whatever particular group they apply to for a persons entire life, and that person will only have a different opinion of a select few of that group whom they have actually met. An adoption person might have the general belief that homosexuals are not fit to adopt, but could change his/her mind for a specific couple upon meeting that homosexual couple trying to adopt. Odds are more likely though that the homosexual couple would be denied the chance for an interview if their paperwork somehow suggested, either by having the box marked civil union, or by asking if the couple directly, that they are homosexual.

Anyhow, to sum up what I've just ranted about. Given the topic of adoption, it is my opinion that civil unions are not equal.

Why? Homosexuality has nothing to do with having multiple partners anymore than heterosexuality. Don't make irrational statements.

if homosexuals can practice their beliefs than so should polygamist

Being gay isn't a belief you idiot.

I guess we should form the church of S&M by your logic right?

By the way, polygamy IS legal in some areas.

And why not? I don't care. I'm not gonna champion their cause, but by all means.

See, the fantasy you have is that having a law that says "dat not weegle" prevents it from happening.

There are polygamists with multiple wives right now and there would be polygamists even if laws strictly banned it.

The only difference is whether or not they receive the legal benefits of being married.

Not that any of it is really comparable to a gay marriage, but hey, let's deal with one part of your idiocy at a time.

Is blueman really cowpuncher?

"Enough" for what? For whom? Why is it OK to separate a group of people and label their love differently?

note: it's a comment pane, not a debate.
It isn't ok under state, however, under the church, an entirely different institution, it is ok. which is why im not christian... but thats the way its spelled out.

I understand that, and churches will always decide their own rules, but I highly doubt that the majority of these gay couples are clamoring to get married in church!

I will agree that civil unions are enough, when marriage is no longer recognized by the government in a way to both allow special financial benefits and the adoption of children. Make marriage purely a religious thing again, and make married couples require to get a civil union themselves to qualify for any of the current benefits of being married, and then civil union for homosexuals will be fair. However, until such a thing happens, if it ever will, marriage and civil union are not equal. And through thus the civil liberties of people will have been robbed.

"I think civil unions are enough."

No, they really aren't.

Well the thing that is wrong about civil unions is that it is still discriminating against gays, it is saying you know what your not normal and either is your love so we have to call it something different. Now if all marriages that were preformed by a government official, judge, captain were considered a civil unions even if the couple is a man or a women I would be ok with that since it’s not a religion that is marrying you. But that is not the case so I say civil unions just as bad as not being able to get married. Gay is the new black, till the 70s interracial marriage was illegal! Why must we always discriminate against someone...we are all Americans lets act like it!

"I do not support gay marriage"

why not?

"Jesus had two dads why can't I?" Instant Classic.

So you think those who have a different opinion are not intelligent? That's not pompous or anything.

No, but when they believe that people are morally reprehensible and should be denied rights because their preacher told them so and that their opposition is going to hell for reasons they also cannot explain, I do call them stupid.

There is no reason why gays should not marry nor have opponents of the issue ever provided me with any.

It's either they hate gays or they think they're following their religion or both, neither of which changes the basic constitutional right gays hold and both of which are stupid positions to hold.

Thanks for trying, buh bye.

I couldn't have said it any better. Right on, Delia.

I feel sorry for those individuals who feel that the Bible is the law. If that was the case, why not ban alcohol? Why do religious individuals seek a short-term relationship with prostitutes? Pathetic. There are many more examples that I can think of but i'm not going to waste my time.

Thank you Delia. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Gay marriage=fail, civil unions are enough. making your words in all caps dont make them any more powerful.

Civil unions are not "enough", seperate is not equal. I'm pretty sure I already said that, maybe I needed to put it into caps for you?

@ozzy

why is it "enough"? you do realize that there are not equal benefits for civil unions and marriages. they are separate AND un-equal

you know absolutely nothing about life...you think you know everything but you do not understand a shred of it...

equal rights under state, marriage under god is impossible if gay. I agree with Elton John on the matter, enough is enough.

Marriage under god? Not all marriages are religious these days, please remember that. Marriage is a government institution as well.

separation of the church and state has been guaranteed, ironically, by a clause in the first amendment of the constitution. they actually have a name for marriages under government, its called a civil union, which I am in full support of.

Civil unions are one thing, but I am engaged and I will be having a wedding for my marriage. I need to go get a marriage license for this and a marriage certification. At no point does religion or god enter the situation. Simply because I am straight, I can call my godless union "marriage" instead of civil union.

These days, marriage is NOT tied directly to religion. There are many, many people who decide to leave god and religion out of their marriage- that doesn't negate the fact that it is indeed a marriage by the government's standards.