Marriages of siblings, animals or children won't happen because society won't let them happen. Gay marriage won't lead to anything but gay marriage. Enough with the slippery slope arguments

Yeah, well done.

Should we be worried about the legalizing of indiscriminate murder as well?

Did you guys see about the SUPER RACE OF ROCK-HUMANS?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

Rocks can't give consent, but what these gays want to do anyway is make it legally required for each woman (even white ones) of childbearing age (that includes 11 year olds) to get pregnant with the child of a rock man EVEN THOUGH ROCKS CAN'T CONSENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITIES111!!!!!

Guys, we have to do something about this, and really, if you believe in freedom, Ron Paul is the only patriot we can truly count on at this point.

When America's chickens and sheep and goats form their own political action committee comparable to the Family Research Council or Concerned Women of America...I might be concerned about legalizing their consent to marry.

Yeah. People marching through the streets demanding the right to marry animals. That is happening.

What does fucking animals have to do with gay marriage? Are you really equating the verbal consent of an adult human being to the perceived consent of a non-human animal?

Look at how African Americans were looked at a few decades ago. Times change and attitudes change, and human decency and civil rights replace close-mindedness and bigotry.

I'm sure that anti-abolitionists argued at one point or another that allowing black men and women to walk free, work for themselves, and enter into Christian matrimony, would bring upon the end of the civilization. The concept would threaten the "racial purity" of the white man. Your illogical stance here is creepily reminiscent of that mindset.

A child can answer "yes" if you ask them if they want candy. They know what candy is, they know it tastes good, and so they want to eat it. A pre-adolescent or adolescent child has not reached sexual maturity. That does not happen until around 17 or 18 years of age on the average.

You cannot ask a 12-year-old to give consent on matters which they cannot understand due to incomplete cognitive, physical, psychological, and psychosexual development. Therefore engaging in a sexual act with a child, whose body doesn't even produce the hormones required for sexual desire to begin with, is rape regardless of whether the child was a willing participant, because the psychological capacity to give that consent is not there. You cannot give consent to what you don't understand. The same applies to animals - a man having intercourse with an animal is in fact raping it. Just because the animal isn't resisting it, doesn't constitute as consent - it means the animal is incapable of consent.

Two adult homosexual human beings are perfectly capable of understanding and giving consent to marriage or sexual relations. You have every right to not approve of their marriage, but you have no right to deny them the same basic rights that you take for granted. Of course, it is always much easier to rally for the denial of basic civil rights when you are not the one affected by those legislative changes.

In the interest of levity, behold: Prop 8: The Musical...

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from FOD Team, Jack Black, Craig Robinson, John C Reilly, and Rashida Jones

Hahahaha... Jack Black plays a convincing Jesus Christ.

Also, it's wonderful to see Alison Janey from West Wing.

ah lets keep the government out of the bedroom --

the Jon Stewart vs. Mike Huckabee interview on the Daily Show a while back was very good. I felt like Stewart was very respectful, but got his point of view across pretty clearly

If you really think that, then you have a misinformed view of who Jesus was, i.e. what his original message/purpose was, as presented in the New Testament. Jack Black is a slouch and a buffoon, and he plays just about every one of his characters that way, and Jesus was in no way presented as a slouch or a buffoon, in the New Testament. Thus, Jack Black as Jesus was not in any way "convincing", even if it was meant to be a lampoon.

I found that video to be insipid and sophomoric, especially considering the work experience (if not professional talent) of the actors/entertainers involved. And, mind you, I would've voted against Proposition 8, if I was a California resident. (I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. And I think that if religion is taken out of the decision-making process, then there is no good reason why homosexuals should be disallowed legal marriages.)

Really, if the makers of that video wanted a personage to lampoon, to deliver that Biblical argument about homosexual acts and the eating of shellfish as both being an "abomination", then they should've used Moses instead of Jesus, since it's the Book of Leviticus (which is one of the five books of Moses, a.k.a. the Pentateuch) where that argument is taken from. Of course, nowadays in Hollywood, Jesus is far more a target for lampooning than Moses is.

I have two teenage daughters, and From what LIFE has taught me, I want to know where you get your information about the statement I have highlighted? If you TRUELY believe that statement, then YOU are misinformed. The human body begins it's ability to physiologically desire to reproduce at the onset of puberty. that is EXACTLY what puberty is. Go back and talk to some professors and see what they have to say. I am sure they will agree with me.

As far as the OP, I really do get upset when the government gets involved in peoples personal desires for happyness. If two men or two women love each other and wat to get married, then let them! Who is it going to hurt?

So in your opinion, a 12-year-old child has completed their psychosexual development to the point where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not to engage in sexual activity? No, I don't agree with you. There is a difference between having started puberty and having developed enough to be able to decide on whether or not to have sex. I am rather disturbed and repulsed by your conclusion to the opposite.

I laugh at the whole "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage" BS. Fine. Let's remove the government privileges granted by marriage and watch just how many gays and lesbians want to be wed (The answer? Not many). Of course they want the government involved: They just want it on their terms.

Anywho, marriage is not a "right" nor is it an act of God. It's a social construct created by society for society and thusly regulated by society. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is no different than banning persons from marrying on account of age, number of partners wanting to be wed to, consanguinity or even species. And, before someone says it, gay marriage is not equatable to interracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation denied a specific group of men and woman (Blacks) a right afforded to another group of men and women (Whites). Neither gays nor lesbians are being denied any "rights", as no man nor woman currently is allowed to marry about man or woman, respectively. If a certain group of gays and lesbians were allowed to marry yet another group of gays and lesbians weren't, you might have a case. But they aren't. So you don't. You can't claim discrimination over a "right" no one has.

(Yup. I'm late to the party. Sue me.)

Woah, and gay marriage is not equatable to marrying children, multiple partners, or animals!

A specific group of men and women (homosexual) are being denied a right afforded to another group of men and women (heterosexual). But is this really about rights, or is this more about a social denial of a legitimate form of romantic relationship?

You mean like the married gays and lesbians here in Canada, or Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge, and others in the U.S.? (Oh, wait, Prop 8 might quash those marriages. So sad.)

The bottom line: this sends a message to homosexual couples that they aren't viewed as having a legitimate relationship. To many (of either sexual orientation), marriage is viewed as a way to make a family "official." Times change, and so does marriage. For example, it isn't as acceptable anymore to marry off one's 12-year-old daughter. Now that many people are willing to accept the "normalcy" of homosexual relationships, they too should be afforded the right to marry. To continue to deny this right (or privilege or whatever) is to continue to deny the very existence of homosexuality.

Really? You're going to cite a 27 yr old Mn case as legal precedent? Anyone could easily go back a couple years from then and find any number of cases that prove no one has the right to engage in interracial marriage, laws known as antimiscegenation laws such as Loving V. Virginia (1958.) Since no one had that right, at the time, to engage in interracial marriage, no one could have claimed discrimination then either? In 1967 16 states were finally forced (by the SCOTUS over turning Loving V. Virginia) to remove such laws.

So there's that hole in your logic. Plus I don't even know what this means-

Never said it was. I did say, however, that gays are not being "discriminated" against any more than a person in any of those other groups are.

What do you mean by "a legitimate form of romantic relationship"? It's not considered legitimate, otherwise it would be legal (In the U.S.).

Nope. As far as I understand it, it's not retroactive so it wouldn't invalidate those couples who have already married. It simply won't allow for new couples to marry.

I didn't know that "having a relationship" meant "being married". The only "message" this sends is that marriage is defined as one man and one woman, thus prohibiting persons who want to engage in a marriage outside of these parameters from doing so.

I thought they were after marriage for the legal benefits.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a gazillion times now, but why should they be allowed to marry?

It was implied. By saying their discrimination is categorically the same as the discrimination against those who want to marry children, multiple partners, or animals, but is categorically different than the previously discriminated interracial couples, it implies that you are comparing homosexual marriage more to the marriage of children, multiple partners, and animals than you are to interracial marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Socially and sexually legitimate.

So "marriage" means "heterosexual marriage." This is what is at issue: this antiquated definition of marriage.

Although I'm sure this is a common desire, it is a faulty generalization to assume that this is all they want.

Because it legitimizes their families. It allows for the state and/or religious acceptance of their monogamous interpersonal relationships so that they can maintain their families with the same status as everyone else.

It's a case in which SCOTUS reaffirmed a state's right to prohibit who can and cannot marry. Seeing as how people like to quote Loving v. Virginia (1967) as establishing marriage as a right, I thought it'd be apt to quote a more recently occurring case which quashes that notion.

...Okay. So you either ignored what I wrote out or didn't understand it.

Rights are (generally) universal. The problem with anti-miscegenation laws is that they took a right which everyone had and restricted it to those people who wanted to marry within their race. Henceforth, discriminatory and why they were struck down. As I said earlier, it'd be the same issue if one group of men, for example, were allowed to marry men while another group was not afforded this same right. That would be discriminatory.

What hole?

It means that gays and lesbians aren't being denied a "right" as the only right involved in marriage is the ability to marry a person of the other gender (Provided they are old enough and are not directly related to yourself). For example:

A straight male can marry a female. A straight female can marry a male. A gay male can marry a female. A gay female can marry a male.

Conversely, a straight male cannot marry a male. A straight female cannot marry a female. A gay male cannot marry male. A gay female cannot marry a female.

See? No one, regardless of orientation, has the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as them. Thus, no one is being discriminated against.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 04 : 08 : 49-----
I'm not comparing it to pedophilia or bestiality in the whole slippery-slope sense, but I am comparing them in the way that marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", which equally discriminates against people who:

1.) Want to marry multiple men and woman (Polygamists).
2.) Want to marry a person of the same gender (Homosexuals).
3.) Want to marry an animal (Bestiality).
4.) Want to marry an inanimate object (Dunno' what that's called).
5.) Etc.

Simply because you take offense to the categorization doesn't make it any less valid. Homosexuals are NOT being singled out and discriminated again, whereas anti-miscegenation laws were CLEARLY aimed at one group of people.

But what does that have to do with marriage?

Obviously, it's not too antiquated as it still continues to persist.

So what else to do they want? I'm quite positive in asserting that if we were to remove the privileges involved in marriage that the issue of gay marriage would all but cease to exist.

To me, this sounds like a fancy way of saying "It gives the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples", in which case I really don't see why they should care what it's called as long as they receive the same benefits.

No one is being discriminated against?

"Sorry, sir, you can't be recognized as having a long-term, monogamous relationship worthy of our blessing because you love a Jimmy instead of a Jenny. If you want to be accepted as such, you need to be less gay."

"But I'm gay."

"Then stop being gay."

"I'll stop being gay if you stop being straight."

"Fair enough, but this means it's impossible for you to ever be married."

"Look, I just want a spouse and a loving family just like everyone else. That's how I was raised."

"Sorry...we don't serve gays here."


Sure....

Marriage is a social act that legitimizes a relationship. By denying gays and lesbians this access, you send the message that the relationship is invalid.

That's a good non-sequitur, but has nothing to do with what I'm actually written out thus far.

:shakehead:

No one is calling their relationship invalid. If anything, we (And I mean society as a hole) deems it to not have the same value to society as a relationship between a man and a woman. Now, if your relationship is only "legitimized" or "validated" by a marriage license, then your relationship was a farce, anyway.

I disagree. I don't see it as quashing that notion at all. I'd say the case affirms the right that adults have the right to marry any other adult they choose.



I didn't ignore it and I understand you. I disagree with you.

And "rights are (generally) universal?" Are there some rights that are not universal? Again not sure I understand your point. Or at least your point as it pertains to this topic.



The hole where you seem to think anti-miscegenation laws were struck down due to discrimination but seem to think discrimination based on sexual orientation are legal and just. Apparently because they're somehow not socially and sexually legitimate. Why or how someone decides what's socially and sexually legitimate for someone else is beyond me.



So if gays want to marry they should marry people they don't love or simply not get married? No, that doesn't sound like discrimination at all. Heck that sounds down right socially and sexually legitimate to me.

Will you demonstrate how it's a non-sequitur?

Okay, so homosexual relationships aren't as good as "normal" ones, eh? Nice.

I sincerely doubt the typical gay couple would view marriage as the only way to legitimize the relationship, especially since (even to this day) many of them can't even marry in the first place. The effect, however, is that by denying them that access, it sends the message you've already sent: You aren't as good as us because you're gay. Which is utter bullshit.

But the ruling doesn't say that and, even if it did, that ruling was clarified four years later. So, either way, adults do not have the right to marry anyone of their choice.

Rights can be rescinded, such as a prisoner's right to vote. That's why I said "generally".

There is no law which stops gay people from marrying on account of being gay. Rather, the law stops people from marrying who do not fit into the "one man, one woman" category which targets more than just gays. Now, I do know of one law which specifically mentioned gays, and that was struck down as being discriminatory as it singled out on group of people (Homosexuals), which was the same reason y which anti-miscegenation laws were also structk down.

What's with the mention of legitimacy? No one is protesting gays and lesbians right to exist or to be gay. Rather, they're protesting gays and lesbians wishes to want to be married (And marriage has nothing to do with establishing a relationship as legitimate, unless you're talking about legal privileges).

Well, society could always just stop gays from marrying period. Now THAT would be pure discrimination.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 04 : 44 : 51-----
Because, once again, your comment didn't have anything to do with what I've been writing out for the past-- I dunno'-- At least 40'ish minutes, almost like you're intentionally misconstruing what it is I'm writing to make it seem as if there's a crusade against the gays and lesbians when, in fact, this is wholely untrue.

Yes, most of the stuff going on now is in response to the GLBT movement, but it is not aimed at marginalizing gays and lesbians to the point where most people claim.

Even though that's not exactly what I said and was written in a way to make what I said worse than how it was actually intended, yes.

So, anyone who doesn't hold the same "right" as another person is considered inferior? I can't become U.S. president. Does that make me inferior to a person born in the U.S.? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

What are you talking about? How were miscegenation laws discriminatory? They were applied equally to all races-- that was kind of their point. Everyone could still get married, they just couldn't marry someone of another race.

For example:

A white male can marry a white female. A white female can marry a white male. A black male can marry a black female. A black female can marry a black male.

Conversely, a white male cannot marry a black female. A white female cannot marry a black male. A black male cannot marry a white female. A black female cannot marry a white male.

See, no one, regardless of race, had the "right" to marry a person of another race. Thus, no one was being discriminated against.

Which group of people? Did you know that they applied equally to both whites and blacks? That was the point. It wouldn't make sense to allow white people to marry blacks, but not allow blacks to marry whites.


Furthermore, I think that proponents of homosexual marriage recognize the fact that it isn't a codified right in most places. I think they generally tend to think that it should be, and that the recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry each other is in keeping with the general principles upon which this nation was ostensibly founded. The opponents of gay marriage in California know this; that is why they had to go so far as to amend their state constitution because *whooopseeee* whoever wrote it was so not concerned about the encroaching national threat to morality that is gay marriage that they failed to mention it anywhere.

The only reason gay marriage isn't a right in many of the places where it isn't a right is that confused individuals* have been very proactive about altering state constitutions before that right can be recognized.

*anyone who is really concerned about the sanctity of marriage would have attempted to amend the constitution to outlaw divorce. Fact:most opponents of homosexuality are only pretending to be concerned about the sanctity marriage.

Arguments against gay marriage collectively resemble a crowd of cockroaches congregating in darkness on a kitchen floor. Shed any light on them and they scatter. You can never seem to get rid of them, though.

Ooo... I see what you did there.

Yes, I do believe in one place I wrote "white" and "black". That was an error on my part. However, what I wrote out still stands. The problem with anti-miscegenation laws were that they denied one group of men and woman a right afforded to another group of men and woman. The issue of gay marriage, however, is not in the same vein. The issue being debated, allowing a man to marry another man or a woman a woman, is currently not a right afforded to ANYONE, regardless of race, gender, orientation etc.. Henceforth, denying gays and lesbians the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as themselves cannot be discriminatory, else it would have long been struck down by SCOTUS.

Marriage, itself, isn't a right (That includes both heterosexual and homosexual marriage). I believe I said in my first post on this thread. As marriage is not a right established anywhere in the Constitution, then how does the allowance or denial of a certain group of people to enter into a marriage either fall in line or conflict with the Constitution?

Banning divorce wouldn't make make marriage any more sacred. Remember, most people believe that marriage was created by God to between a man and a woman-- Nothing more and nothing less.

All right. I'll bite. How so?

Got a ruling I can go look up so I have some idea of what you're talking about?




In this case convicts have done some to lose that right, right? Again is there some right that isn't universal?




No, but there are some laws that stop homosexuals from marrying the person they love and want to have a family with, that's discriminatory. Gay aren't trying to stop anyone else rights they just want the same rights as others.





You brought up the issue of 'socially and sexually legitimate" in your previous post. I'm simply responding to your post, in fact I copied and pasted the term out of your post. I don't see it now. Which means I'm either missing it or you've edited your post. If you edited your post that's a cute move.

So, what is with the mention of legitimacy? You brought it up.



Again just stops them from marrying who they love. Which is pure discrimination.

As I see it, most people who oppose gay marriage do so because 1) they believe that homosexuality is a choice and a sin, and 2) they do not want to raise their children in a society which condones homosexuality. When you cut through all the pseudo-legalese bullcrap about "rights that don't exist" and whatnot, that's basically what it comes down to: religious beliefs.

Marriage may have started out as a religious institution, but many people no longer see it that way. People get married and divorced whimsically, with no qualms about ending it when things get rough. They may bring God up during the matrimonial ceremony, but there's hardly much consideration for the great deity during the divorce proceedings.

To me, God had nothing whatsoever to do with my decision or desire to get married. Marriage didn't mean being able to bang my wife with the blessings of some dude in the sky. I wanted to get married, because to me it it symbolizes commitment that is intended to be lifelong. That may not be the reality, but it is the ideal. Aside from the legal rights that are given to those who are married as opposed to unmarried individuals, many see married people as a "real" couple. A serious couple. I wanted the symbolism, the acknowledgment, and the right to call my beloved my wife.

Religion, for me, had nothing whatsoever to do with it. As such, I find it difficult to give a single valid excuse as to why other adult human beings who love each other should be refused the right to do the same.

I think that in our society we still encourage couples to marry before they have and raise children. I assume that the ideal of the nuclear family with loving parents and cared-for children is still alive today. If that is the case, then why would we not want homosexuals to raise their children in a home protected by that "sanctity" of marriage? Oh, I forgot - we don't want them raising children at all.

Granted, I don't remember my Bible too well, but I don't recall any passage that spoke against homosexuals raising children. Then again it is probably wise not to raise the subject of the Bible at all, since its teachings are riddled with discrepancies anyway. It's just hard not to consider it, since presumably the Bible is the basis for many of these narrow-minded values that people refer to as their justification for attempting to dictate and define valid adult relationships.

As for children learning about homosexuality... I remember seeing on CNN a man talking about why he was all for Prop 8. He said he didn't want schools to teach his children "about homosexuality." I would not be too concerned about it - history has taught us that bigotry and hatred are successfully passed on from generation to generation in the comfort of one's own home. I don't think allowing gay couples to retain basic human rights is equal to "shoving gay" down anyone's throat.

The religious "values" of a number of fanatic nutcases is hardly sufficient basis for prejudiced and discriminatory legislation, but I guess we need to evolve a bit more as a society before we can grasp that concept.

Erm... It was in the Baker v. Nelson link I gave you earlier.

The group labeled as "convicts" never possessed the right. People entering in that group lose the rights they once had.

Laws, by their nature, are "discriminatory" (They have to be) but that does not mean that Prop 8 discriminates against homosexuals, as it doesn't. Or, I should say, it does not single out homosexuals.

Someone else brought it up. I merely responded to it.

No, it isn't.

I'll be back in a bit.

We are talking state constitutions here. Proposition 8 changed a state constitution. And actually, the right for gays to marry is afforded in several places. It will be afforded in more and more places.

I don't know. Why don't you consult one of any of the number of state supreme court decisions which have affirmed that denying gays the right to marry is problematic. If it wasn't a constitutional issue, then why would proposition 8 need to change California's constitution?

From what I can tell, most marriage vows use the term "forever". Marriages are essentially a way to formalize your eternal commitment to someone before god. Divorce cheapens marriage by turning each one of those promises into lies. Gay people just want that same opportunity to lie directly to god's face.

Because they all boil down to contrived justifications for being a busybody.

Let's play finish the sentence:

It's not that I hate gays, its that:
--marriage is only for reproduction, and gays can't reproduce
--my god thinks gays are sinners
--homosexuality is unnatural
--they never had the right in the first place, and don't deserve it now
--the definition of marriage is immutable, and has always been exactly the same as it is now
--allowing them to get married would cheapen the institution of marriage
--if we let them marry, then soon people are going to be marrying animals

These are all ridiculous, and that ridiculousness is easy to demonstrate for anyone to doesn't feel the need to rationalize their dislike of homosexuality.

All these justifications really do is serve as the spoonful of sugar that helps the bigotry go down.

"From what I can tell, most marriage vows use the term "forever". Marriages are essentially a way to formalize your eternal commitment to someone before god. Divorce cheapens marriage by turning each one of those promises into lies. Gay people just want that same opportunity to lie directly to god's face."

This is not what you think marriages essentially are Filth - and you know that. This was just a weak attempt to stereotype the position of anyone that disagrees with gay marriage, and take a cheap shot at the concept of God (come on, you can capitalize it). That little finish the sentence game was just as pathetic. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a reminder,barack hussein obama agrees with this statement.

Marriage is "essentially" an acknowledgment of this union by the society in which they live, and it's definition of it. Society doesn't really give a shit about how long this marriage lasts. The religious people that get married "in the eyes of god", probably take the forever part a bit more seriously, and I'd also imagine their divorce rate is less that your average male/female left winger who gets married because their hiking partners petrouli was irresistible, for better or worse. To factor those divorcees into the those you consider lying in the fact of god is disingenuous.

So who is being the busybody? Gay people insisting that the rest of society acknowledge their eternal commitment to one another, when what they could do is respect the definition, fight for equal rights, and formalize their eternal commitment to each other in whatever other way they want.

At the very least, have respect for the other position. It doesn't need to be demonized, and people that believe in God don't need to be belittled and simplified. As long as that's the case I have no problems thinking to myself "ya know, these people can go fuck themselves".

PS - still haven't learned what "lying" means, eh?

Okay, maybe I'll take another direction.

First let's see what marriage is, generally:

A legal contract (i.e. recognized by the state and/or a religious group) between two people in a romantic relationship with the purpose of one or more of the following:

• legal, social, and economic stability;
• the formation of a family unit;
• procreation and the education and nurturing of children;
• legitimizing sexual relations;
• public declaration of love;
• or to obtain citizenship.

Source: Wikipedia.

Now, then, for what practical reason should we deny gay and lesbian couples contracts that seeks any or all of these things?

That's the definition of why people may get married, but none of them are required by marriage, except for arguably the nurturing of children. In that case, if you have a completely stable loving heterosexual relationship, and a completely stable loving homosexual relationship - do you think theres any advantage to a being raised in a traditional family? I think absolutely, positively YES.

There are advantages to living in non-traditional families too, but what is the answer to my question? Is there a practical reason why we should deny gays and lesbians contracts that seek any of the above points? Sure, marriage isn't required to attain all of them, but they are reasons why people want to get married, gays and lesbians included.

No I guess not. Lets call it a "gay contract" and we can all be happy.

I was thinking "joyage." They can propose with phrases such as, "Will you joyate me?"

The nonsense that marriage amendments are designed to protect marriage from lots of people not just gays is one of the most intellectually bankrupt arguments you have ever posted on this topic on this forum, IL, and you know it. At no point during any political campaign for a marriage amendment has anyone involved in it made any mention of anything but its application to homosexuals.

The point remains, arguments against gays marrying have everything to do with religious bigotry, just as every argument against blacks and whites marrying had everything to do with with racism. If more people would fess up to that, we'd have a better starting place for this conversation instead of these absurd quasi-legal justifications.

As for "let's just give it a different word," so long as the word applied by the state is different for a different-sex marriage than it is for a same-sex marriage, it's not equal. And it never will be. And you can all go read Brown v. Board of Education to learn why.

Now...if the STATE performed, let's say, legal marriages or civil ceremonies or civil unions on EVERYONE and NON-STATE ACTORS (i.e. churches) performed ceremonial marriages or marriages or what have you, that might be something to talk about, because then the split is not based on who is getting married but rather who is doing the marrying. That system would allow people who hate gays for whatever arbitrary reason to prevent them from getting married by their chosen church or what have you and allow others who don't hate people for no reason to allow them to get married, and the state-the great equalizer-wouldn't care who you are, so long as you followed the legal formalities.

Frosstbyte's last paragraph is the best solution to this problem that I've seen.

For the record I find it disgusting we're even discussing it :P

Except that if one is going to get all religiously pedantic about the definition of marriage, one must acknowledge that for many folks the primary religious significance of marriage has traditionally been the fact that it is a promise before god. I'm sorry you think that that's a stereotype. If I said that religious people go to church, would you accuse me of stereotyping there too?

In some places marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Other places allow for homosexuals to marry each other.

There are several communities which acknowledge homosexual marriages. That isn't an issue. The problem is that these marriages aren't given any sort of legal recognition.

Here's a list of the states with 10 highest divorce rates (via StateMaster - Divorce Rate (most recent) by state

#1 Nevada
#2 Arkansas
#3 Alabama
#4 Wyoming
#5 Idaho
#6 West Virginia
#7 Kentucky
#8 Tennessee
#9 Florida
#10 Mississippi

All clearly bastions of liberalism. Everybody knows that Baptists have significantly higher divorce rates when compared with other the divorce rates of other Christian faiths.

Perhaps it has something to do with them getting together over conspiracy theories about how the KKK was actually started by liberals to make conservatives look bad... Wait. Never mind. That's ridiculous.

I was under the impression that gay people were presently attempting to "fight for equal rights, and formalize their eternal commitment to each other in whatever other way they want." This includes changing the legal definition, because while there are churches that will preside of the marriage of two men and/or two women, there are few states that will recognize that marriage.

That doesn't make them busybodies. Unless you don't know what a busybody is. Let me help: A busy body is someone who goes out of their way to stop two guys from getting married.

Actually, I do respect the other position. I just wish that the people who held the other position had enough respect for their own position to just come out and say it. Instead, they contrive ridiculous covers for their bigotry. I would prefer these folks just admit their bigotry; it saves me the trouble of trying to reason with them.

I still haven't learned what the hell you're talking about here.

This reminds me of username Ronnocomot/Mooney from the Trucker's Report Forum. Maybe it's just common among extreme right wingers to make cryptic statements about the honesty of an adversary in an internet forum debate.

See, THIS is where people take a comment or statement COMPLETELY out of content efore asking for a clarification. At NO point did I EVER say that a 12 year old child has "completed their psychosexual development". I never said they could make an INFORMED decision. I simply stated that contrary to YOUR statement, at the onset of puberty the human body has the aility to have physical sexual desires..it is part of NATURE and if we are EMOTIONALLY ready or not is a different situation. At no time did I say they were able to make an informed decision. You are taking my stement out of context, and I am sorry that you feel "disturbed and repulsed" by your OWN misunderstanding. Can we NOT have an intelligent conversation here without coming down on other people? I am merely stating what ANY doctor would say as far as a PHSICAL condition. I was refering to their PYSIOLOGICAL condition which has to do with their PHYSICAL condition, NOT their PSYCHOSEXUAL development, which is COMPLETELY different. Make sure you read a post properly and ask for claification on something before you go ripping into them.