---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:43 pm on Oct. 27, 2008

---

Quote: from whoami111 at 5:42 pm on Oct. 27, 2008

---

Pretty much what most people have already said above; it is a discrimination. Also, forgive my ignorance but does every law has to be based on the bible?

---

 

 What does that have to do with anything?

---

I just want to know.

---

No one ever said that they had to, which is rather good because they're not.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
 

-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom

---

Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.  
 

---

Psh, legal civil unions for everyone. Marriage should never have been a legal institution in the first place.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

I view it as discrimination. What gives people to deny the right of people in love to get married? The divorce rate of straight couples high but some still believe that straight is the only way. You cannot deny love, and you cannot discriminate against those who express it, even though if they are of the same sex.

---

Again, understand the ACTUAL problem with the system.
Gays can get married --they are called civil unions-- they just don't get the benefits of marriage that straight couples do.

the problem lies in the legal definition of "marriage"

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Marrige is part of religion and if religion says no gay marrige, then there should be no gay marrige.

---

So since plenty of religions in the United States say yes to gay marriage, it should be legal? My signature contains a link to the correct solution.

-------
"Hey, that's not very nice, Mayor--
just because a person's gay doesn't mean he's a fag!"
-Stan

---

I believe it's alright to be married according to the state, I just find it unreasonable for homosexuals to demand marriage under religions that openly condemn homosexuality, such as Catholicism.

---

Even as a homosexual male, I feel that this is really true. People have the right to their own religious beliefs, and that's their own business. These people should not be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. I believe that civil marriage is a fundamental right, however, and should be awarded to all, regardless of gender.

---

Quote: from Vordhosbn at 8:31 am on Oct. 28, 2008

---

Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
   

---

Psh, legal civil unions for everyone. Marriage should never have been a legal institution in the first place.

---

Word.

People shouldn't receive financial benefits in legal civil unions, though.

---

Quote: from TheLastMagister at 12:55 am on Oct. 27, 2008

---

I believe it's alright to be married according to the state, I just find it unreasonable for homosexuals to demand marriage under religions that openly condemn homosexuality, such as Catholicism.

---

Even as a homosexual male, I feel that this is really true. People have the right to their own religious beliefs, and that's their own business. These people should not be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. I believe that civil marriage is a fundamental right, however, and should be awarded to all, regardless of gender.

---

Is anyone arguing that people should be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will? Never in my life have I heard someone advance such a position, but people keep consistently coming together to lash out at it.

-------
"Hey, that's not very nice, Mayor--
just because a person's gay doesn't mean he's a fag!"
-Stan

---

Just let people do what they want is what I believe.

---

let people kill each other and steal from each other

you need laws for the greater good of the people, and to enable a society to function.
Marriage is the same, marriage shouldn't be something that we can do at the drop of the hat, which is why its good to have some restrictions on marriage, both people having to be present at a wedding, give consent, having witnesses, being a certain age etc.

What we don't want is a high divorce rate, or for marriages to break down. We also want to create environments in which kids can be raised so that they can have freedom. Positive freedom, not freedom to do whatever they want but freedom to flourish into their potential.

To an extent the marriage debate becomes a semantic debate. How you define determines what should be done about it. One dictionary says its

---

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife

---

---

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

---

---

a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

---

personally I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think thats what marriage always has been, (I know thats a fallacious appeal to tradition) but traditions are important, they create order in society.

I also think intrinsically thats what marriage IS, the bond between a man and a woman that says I want to be with you till death do us part.

If same sex couples want to live together, then so be it. But don't call it marriage. Call it  a de facto relationship.

-------
What are your post-retirement plans?

---

Quote: from noahjk at 4:53 pm on Oct. 27, 2008

---

Just let people do what they want is what I believe.

---

getpreviewHTML('previewdiv','text1','preview');showPP();

let people kill each other and steal from each other

you need laws for the greater good of the people, and to enable a society to function.
Marriage is the same, marriage shouldn't be something that we can do at the drop of the hat, which is why its good to have some restrictions on marriage, both people having to be present at a wedding, give consent, having witnesses, being a certain age etc.  

What we don't want is a high divorce rate, or for marriages to break down. We also want to create environments in which kids can be raised so that they can have freedom. Positive freedom, not freedom to do whatever they want but freedom to flourish into their potential.  

To an extent the marriage debate becomes a semantic debate. How you define determines what should be done about it. One dictionary says its

---

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife

---

while another says

---

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

---

or

---

a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

---

personally I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think thats what marriage always has been, (I know thats a fallacious appeal to tradition) but traditions are important, they create order in society.  

I also think intrinsically thats what marriage IS, the bond between a man and a woman that says I want to be with you till death do us part.

If same sex couples want to live together, then so be it. But don't call it marriage. Call it a de facto relationship.

---

To place sensible restrictions on marriage is one thing, to exclude an entire community from the prospects of ever being wed is another altogether. The other examples you gave (both parties being present, consent, etc) are all reasonable rules, denying two sensible people the right to wed is not. Religions should not be obligated by any means to perform same sex marriages, but what does it matter to you if they call it marriage? Does it affect you at all what they choose to call their relationship?
Imagine for a moment that the tables were turned, and somebody was telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to wed, based on your choice in partner. Would you be satisfied to accept that, even though it is entirely baseless, and does not affect society in any way? Would you be happy to just go de facto based on this?

-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom

@superchris: Religion, however, isn't a part of government, and so the rights granted to heterosexual couples BY THE GOVERNMENT ought also to be applied to homosexual couples.  Religions may feel free to not perform ceremonies for gay people.

@the bible: Eating shrimp is given the same abomination status as being gay.  When's the last time a Christian picketed outside a Red Lobster, or a conservative legislator moved to outlaw seafood?

-------
We aren't gonna die. We can't die. You know why?Because
we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die.

---

@the bible: Eating shrimp is given the same abomination status as being gay. When's the last time a Christian picketed outside a Red Lobster, or a conservative legislator moved to outlaw seafood?

---

God has made these foods clean,
read the rest of the bible, not just a few select law commands

-------
What are your post-retirement plans?