Thanks for making my point. Your argument is a good example of trying to define marriage. You said "Marriage is a contract" it may be true that most marriages have some form of a contract but that is just a formality and not the marriage. A contract defines the parameters of something that exist independent of the contract; it doesn't make the thing. See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject. For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is. And historically speaking marriage has almost always been seen has the joining of male and female for procreation. Which leads us to the next question.

"When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners?"

In the case of marriage it's because they normally produce kids. Why does that matter to the state? consider the following report; http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/ costofdivorce.pdf

So yes, this type of relationship is of serious concern for government and they would be wise to do everything they can to support and encourage it. And primarily because marriages produce the next generation.

You said" The human spirit should be without bonds" this pernicious little lie has been the root of all kinds of human evil, not to mention the question of this debate. People doing what ever they want without restraint is anarchy and detrimental to society, it's why we have laws. If we are going to flourish some restraint is necessary. But let me ask you, what is more creative and productive, the undisciplined mind or the disciplined mind? Before you respond let me remind you of your education that allows you to read and write, with out which you couldn't have this debate.

Final thought. You said "Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect." Heterosexual couples typically reproduce and homosexual couples never do. How is that the same effect and how does this avoid being a contradiction since you say "A" is the same as "non-A"

There are people in this general debate who kinda believe that if we allow same-sex marital coupling, then:

Paedagamy (Paedophilic marriage)

Kids will be allowed to marry other kids.

Zoophyligamy (Zoophilic marriage)

Animals will also get to marry

Necragamy (Necrophilic marriage)

And somehow the dead will start demanding civil rights...

Traditional marriage is one man banging his secretary while his wife stays home and watches soap operas. Eventually, he leaves his wife and kids and marries his secretary. Why do the gays want to destroy that?

We just want to be treated equally.

But your not the same kind of a relationship, isn't that why you refer to yourself as a "same sex relationship" and not a heterosexual marriage? Aren't you the one and not the other?

Our children have the right to have a sense of belonging without any prejudices

You are the one who denied them that by your choice, not us. Are you not comfortable with choice you made? Our choices have consequences. If you made the choice I would assume you thought through the ramifications and were willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise you would have chosen differently. Why then must we accept the consequences for you? It's your choice not ours.

GOD made us equal and in his vision.

Not quite, in one sense He did and in one sense He didn't. We know that due to the fact we are all different, some people are just smarter than others. He did however create us all in His Image, But that image has been shattered and distorted by sin. The fact that homosexuality doesn't show up till after the fall ought to tell us something. And don't tell me there was no fall because I see the effects of it every day and I battle against my own inner corruption daily.

Ephesians 2

By Grace Through Faith

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Yeah, Oil and toxic waste spills occur in nature to and if such a thing happens we as humans should support it.

yeah, let it be a man and a woman. a man and a man, a man and 10 women, a women and 10 men, A man and a boy, a man and the neighbors little girl. A man and 10 little girls. A man like Warren Jeffs. A man and what ever he wants, 10 men and what ever they want, 10 women and what ever they want. Heck let's all just do what we want and we'll all be happy, Yeah! Oh wait! that's anarchy and in anarchy nobody gets what they want and nobody is happy, except the guy with the biggest gun. Darn I guess we do have to give up lesser freedoms to gain greater ones. Darn, to have real liberty I need to give up certain freedoms for the greater good in order that I might live in peace.

A wise man once said: before you take down a fence you ought to find out why it was put up in the first place.

Or as Edmund Burke (1729-1797) said, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

I hope you don't think this is the first time in human history that a society has wrestled with this question. They have indeed and they put up fences for some really good reasons. You would do well to find them out

I agree with this statement! It's true... we are adults and some of you may not want to see two men hold hands but honestly I think it gross to watch a man and a women suck face in public. I don't like watching public affection both gay and straight. So if any of you are just saying that gays have no right to be married only cause you're afraid to see them kiss... do what I do when I see a man and a women make out! Ignore it and go about business were grown adults and the only thing majority of adults have to say is "Oh My God two people kissing!" Grow up act your age and move on!

Trouble is that you can't reproduce. You're a dying breed. Good luck on changing human nature, it has remained unchanged after thousands of years. But let say you do "win" what then? Your civilization goes into negative population growth and dies out, just like every society before it. And the cycle begins again. People respond to tragedy by becoming conservative, gain peace, get comfortable, get lazy, get liberal and die off. Then repeat. That's human history in a nut shell and there is nothing new under the sun, Same old problem with new faces looking at it. If you think this question is a new one, think again. We are locked in a struggle of utter futility. Have fun in your march towards suicide, I've found the door.

"Gay marriage can never be allowed!"

Need a list of all the countries in the world where gay marriage is now allowed? Boy, oh boy, you have your work cut out for you, trying to get them all to change their laws.

"No gay people." Too late. If god didn't want people to be gay, She wouldn't have created them.

Actually gay marriage exists in a number of states [see my picture for exactly how many]. Prop 8 was only in California.

As far as civil unions, I think it's a good first step (many states don't recognize any union between homosexuals) but separate but equal, is inherently unequal, and marriage is a fundamental right (this isn't my opinion, but was decided unanimously by the supreme court).

I am very glad though that you decided to keep religion out of the equation.

Guess what? Marriage is a "civil union".

In order to get married, you need a license from a government office. You can't get it from a religious organization. That makes marriage a civil matter.

The meaning of "civil" in this situation is "of or pertaining to civil law". Civil law is "the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters."

One definition of "union" is "the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage". As I said, marriage is a civil union.

"marriage is our thing and they should get there own thing."

Marriage, permitted by a license from the goverment...

Marriage which confers upon its participants over 1,000 federal benefits...

is who's thing?

"Technically "Gay Marriage" doesn't exist."

Technically "Gay Marriage" does exist -- in many countries in the world and several states in the United States. Need me to name them all for you?

your qoute does not make since to me "we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin" because it sound to me as if your saying being straight is the sin and did you actually see a sign that said this? i am thinking that you took a qoute and made it different and if thats the case that just makes you crazy for trying to impress upon us a qoute that implies your veiws that does not exist. its like laughing at your own jokes

Gay people should get their own thing? I agree. In support, can anyone provide a very good reason as to why black people should have gotten their own kind of marriage? That is also what you liberals would call an "arbitrary" or "capricious" distinction.

Quite simply people of different races do not get together and they should "get their own thing". There's nothing wrong with the name Mixed Union when they are given the same legal entitlements as marriage (pure-race unions, or clean-marriages, of better defined as those marriages which are in keeping with our honourable forefathers of America).

Marriage is a precious institution of our society and only recently in the history of the US has the mixing of races within this great institution been permitted (research yourself how liberal and "new" this Mixed Union concept is). The other Great nations of the past also did not permit such mixings; even S. American nations (which do not count as one of those capital-G "Great" nations) until recently made explicit laws making sure that those Mixers would GET THEIR OWN THING instead of muddying up the definition of marriage. As other people later put it, and quite logically put it, 1+1 IS NOT 3, IT'S 2. THE ANSWER IS 2. Though, of course, one would argue the real answer is to this problem is 42... anyone with me?

1 Latino + 1 Pure Aryan = DOES NOT MAKETH A MARRIAGE; it makes it a Mixed Union entitled to all the same legal protections as marriage. We do make this extremely precious and important distinction because nowadays our dictionaries are getting muddied with upstart liberal ideas (my god, they want to redefine sexuality and say that men have sex with men... and the women, the pure women as well! it's just inconceivable). For the sacred, time-honored tradition of protecting our dictionaries, we make that important legal distinction.

Yes, that's exactly why we are so passionate about arguing for the non-arbitrary distinction between real marriage and Mixed Unions. We are concerned that 1+1 is not 3, and we are also concerned about the muddying of our dictionaries. And since Mixed Unions have the same legal entitlements as real marriages, my lawyer told me that it does not constitute discrimination and that those liberals are likely to fail at a challenge in the courts. Suckers! Shoulda hired better lawyers, you Mixers!

Oh wait, we're talking about those gay people. Yeah, suckers, you Civil Unioners. I won't call you by your real name, but you know what name I'm thinking for you when I think of you... you non-marriage Unioners!

Separate but equal is just as equal as surely as 2 = 2 or x = x.

btw, with more convincing logic, if a = b and b = x, then a = x. See? Different, yet equal. wow. just wow.

1(male)+2(female)=3(mairrage) than

1(male)+1(male)=2(female) than

1(male)+1(male)+1(male)=3(mairrage) than

2(female)+2(female)=3(mairrage)+1(male)

So, through your logic, I have detemined that a male whom is married is actually two women.

Please refine your logic. The above is nonsencical.

OK, it seems my analogy was a little unclear. I probably should have used letters instead of numbers because it seems that some people read into those numbers the values associated with them, which was not my point. It would be better put like this a+b is not the same as a+c. What I was trying to say is that different combinations produce different results, they don't produce the same results. The easiest way to say it would be that two men joined together don't produce the same thing as a man and a woman joined together, they're different.

So my main point is this. Let's say we all vote and make gay marriage legal. Does our vote change the objective reality that their is a difference in the type of relationship. Does the homosexual relationship become a heterosexual relationship and vice versa simply because we voted and said they're equivalent?

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Currently it refers to a special kind of relationship between a man and a woman. We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love. By failing to do so, we are collectively deriding gay love as unworthy, and this is a disgusting thing to do.

(btw, your link is broken.)

Using your logic, I have also determined that three men can get married because two men are equivalent to one woman.

"As a mathematical formula it would look like this: 1+1 is 2 we would be wrong to say that 1+2 is also 2 Our saying that the two equations are the same doesn't make them the same."

More like 1+2=3, it's more hereto than 1+1. (;

You give the arbitrary definition of man + woman = marriage and say that this is the only possible definition. You could have been more specific and said specific man + specific woman + marriage, and then the argument would have been different specific man + different specific woman cannot equal marrige. Or you could have said same race man + same race woman = marriage and then the argument could have been made that different race man + different race woman cannot equal marrige.

The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.

As you say, "Marriage is something in particular." Its a legal union requiring a license from a government office, not from a religious organization. That's why gay people are fighting for "equal rights", not "equal rites."

For the government to remain neutral on this issue, they need to stop denying gay people the same rights as others to marry. As it is, the federal government is anything but neutral. They deny over one thousand federal benefits to people legally married in several states who happen to be of the same sex.

What a silly old argument. "Gay people have equal opportunity to marry...to a member of the opposite sex."

Here is an idea. Since you like equality so much, let's make it illegal for you to marry the person you love and only legal to marry who we say you can. Ya, lets give you the same "equal opportunity to marriage" as you want to give to gay people.

Sound like a plan?

Here is a thought for you. Imagine a large island with just gay people and they are not allowed to marry. How long would that population last?

"don't call it marriage."

Well, marriage is actually a civil union. It is licensed by a civil authority and it is the union of two people. So lets stop calling anything "marriage", at least legally, and let consenting adults form a civil union with the person they love. And if they want, some of them might want to do that in their church or temple!

omg what are you saying that if gay people start getting married there wont be anymore procreation...are you like 5 years old,the laws of attraction wont differ if gay men are getting married or no,that will only make a difference for gay people straight people will not be affected. either way gay people wont make other people gay,so procreation is still gonna happen. your point of view is so silly and has no sens. and by your logic it means that homosexuality is a plague wish is so wrong,how can you explain the existence of a gay person then? a woman and a men no???? if your friend is gay doesn't mean UL be infected or everyone around him will be gay that is so absurd. go read some more psychology people before you get influenced by your instinctive reason that was forged by ignorant individuals.

"if every couple in the known world for say went homosexual humans would thereby go extinct"

Right, and if every couple in the known world went to the movies, humans would thereby go extinct. Because, you know you can't have sex at the movies. Especially when it would be so crowded in the theater.

But I think you are on to something here. If people have same-sex relationships BUT don't make it a legal union, THEN the human race will be saved. But once we let one same-sex couple get married, then everyone will go gay!

For example, in the state of MA -- can't find any heterosexuals in that state now. Even the state Senator posed nude, which is, of course, gay gay gay. Damn that MA. The human race is now doomed.

If people accept that it's okay to like peas, will everyone in the world begin liking peas?

gays are born, not turned. Gay people cant make more gay people and they alwasy would be the minority. Look at Canada or places where gays are aloud to marry, i havent herd on the news: canada's population gone!

that is so WRONGGGGGGGG! You really need to do your homework. Did you know that way back during the Greeek times, Men and women only had intercourse to reproduce. Sexual pleasure came from same sex intercourse. Most people will always want children weather they are gay or straight

Well considering we have a OVER populated planet already instead of having to rule how many children a family is allowed to have like China. Why is more gays a bad thing if gay marriage will lead to a slow down in population growth then why hasn't it been legalized sooner? Would you rather have no gay marriage and a over populated plant where children are starving due to having a insignificant amount of food because that is where we are now and going more so to in the near future.

There will be an increasing amount of Gays.

That is a lie!, there would be an increase in gay marriages yes, But not an increase in gays. Your not raised to be gay! It's more of a mental thing, I mean think about it for a minute, If we are raised to like the opposite sex? then why are there so many people wanting to marry the same sex?

if 20 percent of children that are born are homosexuals means 80 percent are not ...the percentage cant be altered into saying the 20 percent will influance the 80 and there would be 100 percent homosexuals...tht is totaly absurd. the gay people will marry gay people and the straight would marry straight people as simple as that.allowing the gay people to get married wont alter the fact of their existance it will alter your conception of their existance. preventing same sex marriage is just like racisme,slavery,despotisme...do not ask for your own rights if you cant ask for the right of an other human.

What will happen if Negros are accepted? There will be an increasing amount of Negros! That equal rights thing is dangerous!

So let me get this straight. Their lifestyle denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. So your argument to combat that is to...deny homosexuals (also US citizens) the chance of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Hmm, seems a bit contradictory.

I guess we should put a stop to divorce as well. Also higher rates of depression and suicide, effects children, decreased well-being, etc. Are you going to argue that should be abolished as well?

Um, guess what. Rejection of homosexuals "leads to high rates of suicide, infectious diseases, depression and a reduction of life expectancy by 20yrs"..that is, if any of what you say is at all true.

And guess what else? Your denigration of peoples sexuality by calling it a "lifestyle" denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It's not a lifestyle fella. Its a life.

And sure. Overthrow the government because people decide to stop denying other people equal rights? Sounds like a plan to me. Not a good plan. Just a plan.

your brain seems constipated with nonsence and discrimination.

Lol exactly.

Dihorrea actually

God didn't make man or woman you inbred

Adam and Eve have kids, then what?

Their kids have kids with each other, then their kids, and theirs, and so on

Religion is a joke for uneducated people who couldn't explain the sky, the sun, or why we don't fall off the other side of the world

all you got to say ha,i couldn't find more from you even if i wanted. before saying god said that and that and that,why dint you prove the existence of god at the beginning,then prove his capacity to say something then prove our capacity to understand him...and if god can talk to humans and we can interact with him that would mean he is no longer god because he loses hes main essence.

If there is such a thing as god, owong, and god made man and woman, and man is sexually attracted to other men and this is against that god's will, then yes, god made a mistake.

this change comes in child age so children dont know what it right and what is wrong for them.. so they violate the law of god to marry the same sex.