The argument for gay marriage will rest, simplicty will be restored, people won't have to worry about govenrment's destruction of their religous term ( since they can just refuse to beleive certain people (gays or other people who according to their religion are not supposed to be considered married) , and everyone will have secured their best interests and beleif in the definition of the term marriage. It might not seem conventional or practical but it seems like it could solve the problem.

Maybe. I am unsure. Looking at how many people are so strongly against gay's civil union to be called marraige. Many states start to pass state amendent. I can only wonder how many people will object the idea to change civil marriage between a man and a woman to civil union. I guess we will not know that for a long time.

Now theres food for thought. Ive always thought gay marriage should be legalized, and heres two points Ive thought of: 1. If you think gays can ruin the sanctity of marriage, ask yourself: How will two people joining together in a union ruin something that is basically joining two people into a union any more than destroying said union? 2. If you think God is against gays or some other religious reason, then why would gays be allowed to exist?

Your food for thought sucks. I can play the devil advocate and asnwer both of your questions:
1) the first dosn't seem to make any sense, and I wonder if you have typos somewhere. It makes no sense. I presume you mean, how can one union destory another union If they are similar, they cannot destory each other. Easy, how can a tank destory another tank? How can a company rivals another company? How can a army defeat another army?

2) you said that the existance of gay people prove they are not against god's will. This is the dumbest thing I heard. I only hope you are not a spokeperson for gay. You are like a Michael Moore for Democrat, cause more harm than good. Ok, how come Satan and murders and Hilter and many evil things exist? According to you, rapists must not be against god's will because they exist. Which page of Bible or Koran or Sandscript state "No evil can exist"? If no bad deeds can exit, why do god has to spend most of the time teaching/lecturing us to avoid evil.

I am against gay marriage but I am not a homophobe. Though the previous statement has become an oxymoron in the past couple years, it shouldnt be. Why am I against gay marriage? Because:
A) Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman
To classify both together would dilute the tradition of marriage
C) Homosexuals dont need marriage, they need the rights of married couples (civil unions)
D) How fair is it to say that gay people are allowed to marry but noone else is?(not incest, beastiality, etc.) Both use the same exact arguements, who are you to judge the man who is getting married to his dog? After all:

Marriage is a special union between 2 individuals and their God.

no one chooses to participate in a lifestyle...it's how they were born

so are you saying all serial killers where born that way, or how about all incest? Or, again, bestiality? You cant make a truth be only for gay couples, that would be unfair.

Mich21,

Good points. Everytime I talk to someone who support gay marraige, they have problem with polygomy (marry to more than one person). Why can't people marry to multiple partners? Who are you to judge? I n fact, throughout our human history, marriage was not just defined between a man and a woman. For majority of the human history, a man marrying to multiple women (polygomy) has always been accepted as normal. So there is historical acceptance to polygomy, but not homosexual marraige. Any reason why one would support gay marriage but not polygomy?

Your food for thought sucks. I can play the devil advocate and asnwer both of your questions: 1) the first dosn't seem to make any sense, and I wonder if you have typos somewhere. It makes no sense. I presume you mean, how can one union destory another union If they are similar, they cannot destory each other. Easy, how can a tank destory another tank? How can a company rivals another company? How can a army defeat another army?

I wasn't saying mine was food for thought, the post before mine. I'll give you point 2, but you misinterpreted point 1. I meant, how could gays ruin the sanctity of marriage anymore than divorce does. I guess I din't explain that well enough.

"D) How fair is it to say that gay people are allowed to marry but noone else is?(not incest, beastiality, etc.) Both use the same exact arguements, who are you to judge the man who is getting married to his dog? After all:
Marriage is a special union between 2 individuals and their God."

A dog can not consent or show feelings. No animal has shown the ability to comprehend the union and therefore it isn't between the individual and a partner but a partner and an object. Incest is possible to be considered a marriage. It consists of 2 individuals and their God.

But whoever said you had to recognize this as marriage? Whoever said I had to recognize someone and their spouse (in a heterosexual relationship) as married???What if I don't beleive Mr. A and Mrs. A are truly married because Mrs. A is using him and doesn't love him and if she doesn't I don't beleive they are truly married. Do I have to recognize their marriage?

A dog can not consent or show feelings. No animal has shown the ability to comprehend the union and therefore it isn't between the individual and a partner but a partner and an object. Incest is possible to be considered a marriage. It consists of 2 individuals and their God. But whoever said you had to recognize this as marriage? Whoever said I had to recognize someone and their spouse (in a heterosexual relationship) as married???What if I don't beleive Mr. A and Mrs. A are truly married because Mrs. A is using him and doesn't love him and if she doesn't I don't beleive they are truly married. Do I have to recognize their marriage?

A dog does have feeling. If animals have no ability to comprehend union, then there would never be something like a "lion pack" or a "wolf pack". So why marry has to be between two individuals and not three or four or five? People used to marry multiple wives, it isn't like it wasn't accepted. In fact, most of our history is polygamy not monogamy.

"So why eos it has to be between two individuals and not three or four or five? People used to marry multiple wives, it isn't like it wasn't accepted. "

Who said I wouldn't recognize them? Who said I had to or shouldn't? As an idividual there will be some who will do so and some who won't?

Anyway it wouldn't be in the government's best interests because the system would be easily abused so that many wives would mean more benefits.

On the basis marriage has an extremely person to person definition and the government trying to legislate the definition as a whole for all is where the problem arrises. A word that is so religous, personal and spiritual in it's roots being replaced by another term in laws and other legal matters might be in the best interests of society and people and their beleifs.

". If animal has no ability to comprehend union, then there would never be something like a "lion pack" or a "wolf pack". "

It's communism not love. They stick together to keep each other alive. Then again it's been impossible for an animal to communicate human ideas in a way we can understand

". If animal has no ability to comprehend union, then there would never be something like a "lion pack" or a "wolf pack". " It's communism not love. They stick together to keep each other alive. Then again it's been impossible for an animal to communicate human ideas in a way we can understand

Oh my god. You think there is no love between aniamls?!? You are so wrong. Throughout history, human has evolved to the point which we can comprehence deep reasoing and logic. That is the only evolution we have seperate human and the rest of aniaml. Love is an emotion. Animal has strong emotion. You see that between a dog and her puppies. If anything our logic and deep thinking is what prevent human from falling in love. You mentioned that some people marry for money or using the other person. If you think too much on a relationship then it is not love, it is a business transcation. Frankly, there is more love between animals than humans.

"You think there is no love between aniamls?!'

There is. Just not in a "lion pack" or "wolf pack " nessecarily. It could be very well and emotionless coopartation in the fight for survival. But emotion between man and animal sounds pretty much impossible to me. This is because there are 2 different thinking patterns and emotional feelings without a bridge to translate one into the other.

"You think there is no love between aniamls?!' There is. Just not in a "lion pack" or "wolf pack " nessecarily. It could be very well and emotionless coopartation in the fight for survival. But emotion between man and animal sounds pretty much impossible to me. This is because there are 2 different thinking patterns and emotional feelings without a bridge to translate one into the other.

Okay, I can't hold it in on this one. Are you telling me that pets are incapable of loving their owners? After years of care, and the owner showing love, you don't think an animal could love a human? I think that sounds more far-fetched. Animals and the way you word it, your also saying humans are incapable of loving animals. Now that is just flat-out not true. You take me to a Pet Graveyard and tell me these people didn't love their animals.

I concede. You are correct. I have not given the idea enough thought.

DPS, I couldn't have said it better myself, considering I said almost the exact same thing farther up, I doubt anyone will listen to reason though.

Marriage will be (and already is) confirmed as between a man and woman (as it is in 17 states so far). Civil Unions (same sex couples right to join) will be passed (in most states) when activists stop insisting on it being "marriage". There really isn't much left to debate.

Reply #27 By: DPS - 11/5/2004 9:43:13 AM And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.

This shows how uninformed you are. The amendment has nothing to do with gay marriages. It's to keep the federal government out of it and let the states handle it! You really should read more.

Reply #49 By: NJforever - 11/6/2004 6:04:56 PM Now theres food for thought. Ive always thought gay marriage should be legalized, and heres two points Ive thought of: 1. If you think gays can ruin the sanctity of marriage, ask yourself: How will two people joining together in a union ruin something that is basically joining two people into a union any more than destroying said union? 2. If you think God is against gays or some other religious reason, then why would gays be allowed to exist?

Ever hear of Sodom and Gomorrah? If not read the story basically God rains down fire and brimstone on all the gays.

Leviticus 18:22 and 10:13 says that homosexual acts between two men are deeply abhorrent to God, repugnant to Him--and worthy of death. Under the law of Moses sex between two unmarried persons (fornication), or sex outside of marriage (adultery) were also (in most cases), capital offenses as well. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (active) homosexuals, nor (passive) homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Now you want to try and tell me again how God feels about gay people?

If you had read my other post, you would know I have conceded point 2.

"The amendment has nothing to do with gay marriages. It's to keep the federal government out of it and let the states handle it! You really should read more."

How does an amendment to the US Constituion stating that "Marriage is Between Man and Woman" hand it off to the states? It prevents them from redefining marriage state by state. Amendments to state constituitions is not a problem but to tamper with the US constitution to make marriage soley between a man and a woman will not make it a state issue. And it can not be denied that the religous right was a motivating factor behind getting an amendment to the US Constitution for making this definition loud and clear. I got a lot of email from the AFA(American Family Association) during the elction time reminding me to vote for pro-traditional marriage candidates who voted for the FMA As for theat passage from the Bible there is a myriad of Bible reincarnations. You probably took the most conservative one. There are others out there that make it ambiguous how God feels towards homosexuals. Then again what can you expect from so many translations. .

Reply #68 By: DPS - 11/6/2004 9:32:01 PM "The amendment has nothing to do with gay marriages. It's to keep the federal government out of it and let the states handle it! You really should read more." How does an amendment to the US Constituion stating that "Marriage is Between Man and Woman" hand it off to the states? It prevents them from redefining marriage state by state. Amendments to state constituitions is not a problem but to tamper with the US constitution to make marriage soley between a man and a woman will not make it a state issue. And it can not be denied that the religous right was a motivating factor behind getting an amendment to the US Constitution for making this definition loud and clear. I got a lot of email from the AFA(American Family Association) during the elction time reminding me to vote for pro-traditional marriage candidates who voted for the FMA.

Before you run off at the mouth, READ this!

President's Remarks view listen President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage Remarks by the President The Roosevelt Room 10:43 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country. The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Anyway it wouldn't be in the government's best interests because the system would be easily abused so that many wives would mean more benefits.

Well, there could be a ceiling on the benefits. Besides, why is gay marriage in the government's best interests?

Okay, I can't hold it in on this one. Are you telling me that pets are incapable of loving their owners? After years of care, and the owner showing love, you don't think an animal could love a human? I think that sounds more far-fetched. Animals and the way you word it, your also saying humans are incapable of loving animals. Now that is just flat-out not true. You take me to a Pet Graveyard and tell me these people didn't love their animals?

Also, animals can consent. I know if Sonic the fat dog tries to do something to the Marge that she doesn't like, she'll growl and kick his ass. Somebody who supposedly lived on a farm also told me that sometimes when they were trying to get horses to mate, the female horse would reject the male horse.

I thought you were trying to tell me that this US Constituitional amendment put it back in states hands?

"Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Whoever said I supported Clinton? Were you trying to make a point by telling me a Democrat signed a Law that was less powerful then an actual Constitutional Amendment?
I thought we were talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment voted on in late September? Not about the Law Clinton passed 8 years ago.

Marriage. Married. Union. Love. Divorce. Seperation. Religion. State. Law. Government.
I think the undierlining issue with gay marriage is children.
The vast majority of psychologists and sociologists agree that it is far better for child development if the child is raised, properly, by both of its parents. male and female partents
Common comments. How can a boy learn to be a man, if not by his father? How can a girl learn to be a woman, if not by her mother. And so on and so forth.
I guess we can let TV and celebs be the role model for our kids. No most people disagree with that.
I was raised by my mother, who turns out to be "bi-sexual"
She divorced my biological father when I was 3 months old. She had a short term love affair with another woman and then decided get married to my brother's father. eight years later, and I can vividly remember it, they got divorced, again so she could have a woman lover.
Twice torn from a loving family.
Since then, my mother has had numerous women "lovers" and non worked out. She now has abandoned all sexual feelings and is just silently flowing along, like a secluded stream. No joy, nothing to show for all of her youthful exuberance.
I was torn apart by her lifestyle, which she proclaimed to me once " its MY life, it has NOTHING to do with you!"
Thats interesting, as a child who looks up to and depends on his parents, or in my case parent, her choices and actions DIRECTLY affected me. Sure I just loved moving from place to place. Making and breaking friendships on my mother's whim. two or more schools per year and so on.
I loved being left alone, at five years old, for two days or so at a time and virtually every night while my mother went on her lesbian forays.
It disgusts me that the issue of children is largely ignored in this issue. Just like my mother's diluted logic, "its MY life, it has NOTHING to do with you!"
well you might as well say " it's THEIR life and has NOTHING to do with them ( the children)"

I don't care for children. They should just stop whining and grow up faster. Children from other countries are shot at and burned to death.

"Well, there could be a ceiling on the benefits. Besides, why is gay marriage in the government's best interests?"

Because it would mean equal rights for the 2 types of relationships? Iff there was a ceiling on benefits in a way that polygamy could not be easily abused then it would be equal to these 2 relationships then I would consider it ok for the government to recognize this.

I still can't see why government doesn't just stop using the term "Marriage" altogether and just replace it with civil unions that are granted to both homosexual and heterosexual partners? Would anyone be really opposed?

"Also, animals can consent."

But can they show any consent to marriage and further more can they prove that they know what marriage is?

2. If you think God is against gays or some other religious reason, then why would gays be allowed to exist?

Yes, God is the reason things are the way they are now. We dont have a thing called free will. If homosexuality is a genetic issue that some are born with I guess God must have intended for it to be so. Just like cancer, AIDS, leprosy, damn the list goes on and on. Thing is there is something in genitics called a "point mutation" and somewhere along the line it happened.
Why would evil people be allowed to exist? Why do natural disasters happen? Why do people die? Why are there wars? Why are there sickneses?
God does not, nor will ever simply make something cease to exist simply because we think or know its wrong. We are responsable for our OWN actions, not God.