So should cooking, and credit (i.e. how credit works, etc), and the arts and humanities, and world religions, and world cultures, and extensive government classes.

But you can't require everything. Why not let people choose what they think is important?

Also, my PE class was very little working out and a lot of playing baseball, basketball, volleyball, etc. If PE was cardio, weights and physical fitness it would be a lot more useful imo.

Let me spell it out for you then, and I'll use very short sentences to make it easier:

He thinks Obama was only voted in because he was black.

You think the poster is white.

Because you assume he's white and he doesn't like someone who happens to be black, you called him a racist.

You made a decision based completely on race.

You appear to be a racist.

Everyone that is not hurting anyone else has the right to pursue their goals in life, and the things that make them happy.

Says who? There is no written protection anywhere in the constitution saying so. It can be inferred, perhaps, but it is not a guaranteed right. As such, the majority can vote on this issue any way they like until the constitution is changed in a legal fashion (i.e. the legislative branch).

Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date?

I do and so does a lot of other people

So? Who are you? Who are they? I can find just as many people (more probably) who disagree with you. Who says your morals are better than theirs?

a freedom granted that they respect other peoples rights and freedoms as well, including those of homosexuals to get married in a civil ceremony,

Again, says who? All of these rights and guaranteed freedoms are nice to talk about, but they just don't exist.

it becomes so when you go out of your way to label and abuse Gay people.

Yes. This is actually what I mean when I said the argument had degraded. The descent into name calling was very immature. Most of my very best friends are gay and I take real offense to comments like these.

Are you seriously equating murder with homosexuality?

No, I'm using the logic of something you believe to be wrong to show you how religious people feel. Did you know that many religions believe homosexual acts are only one step down from murder? Many religions believe God destroys whole cities if they permit homosexuality. But more importantly, this is an attempt to put you in their shoes and show one reason why they have a right to vote to make homosexual marriage illegal.

it is not the right of the religious to force their opinions on any one especially when it has nothing to do with religion.

They have a right to vote their conscious, and it has everything to do with religion. Do you have a right to force your morality on them and have their tax dollars support something they find to be a crime next to murder?

And yet in science it is freely stated that nothing can be proven completely. They used to believe the world was flat. They once said that everything that could be invented had been. Science is no more "proven" than religion.

I use the term "arguing" liberally here, this discussion fell apart a long time ago :)

But because of some all too conservative people, the rights of two people to be happy

Where do we have a right to be happy? I'm only happy if I'm not poor. Does that mean I have a right to money because it makes me happy?

are denied based on out-dated texts and bigoted moral judgments

Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date? If person x believes God says gay sex is wrong, why would that change over any number of years? Your dispute is that you don't believe God says that, but doesn't everyone have a right to religious freedom?

And is it bigoted to say being gay is bad? If you believe fornication (sex out of marriage) is wrong, you believe that in all cases. If you believe gay sex is wrong you believe that in all cases. Does that make someone a bigot? I'd be willing to believe you think murder is wrong in all cases, does that make you a bigot?

You are both arguing two separate points because you have two different life views. While one of you is probably right, it does not necessarily mean that the other is stupid or bigoted to believe in something different.

:) I think you mean exceptions. Acceptions would imply something completely different :)

No one is telling anyone who they can love, we're talking about who they can marry, something very different. Unfortunately the burden of proof is not on the so-called "bigots" you mention (who just believe something different than you. If you believe everyone who believes different than you is a bigot, you might be surprised to discover that you have become one as well). Marriage is only currently legal between a man and a woman. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right that gives anyone otherwise. So in order to change it, you must pass a law democratically. If you can't do that you are free to try and persuade people why they should change their minds, but the burden of proof is on you.

Where is discrimination not allowed? People are legally discriminated against all the time. Where is marriage a right? This is a very slippery slope. If the majority can be circumvented anytime someone says it's the "right" thing to do, we are not living in a democracy, we are living in a dictatorship.

We live in a constitutional govt where the constitution shows what the majority can and cannot do and what is legally "right". Show me in the constitution where marriage is a right (or more appropriately, where we have the right to marry whomever we want) and I will concede your argument.

Congratulations, once again you have a post that says nothing. "I don't have to say anything because it's obvious."

The irony is the only one who hasn't written anything coherent so far is you. If you have something to say, say it, but your "I don't have to debate because the answer is obvious from your posts" remarks are literally a waste of space and have no room on a debate page.

Learn to express yourself before you call other people incoherent...