Well, marriage is a matter for church, so it is their right to say two men or two women cant be married. Unions on the other hand, are a matter of the state, and I don't agree with same sex relationships, I don't see it as fair to give rights to one group of people, and not another.

There are two main aspects to the argument: control over the legal incidents of marriage (hospital visiting privileges, inheritance rights, insurance coverage), and control over the definition of marriage itself. If memory serves, a majority of Americans favor the idea of "civil unions" -- which grants the legal incidents of marriage but doesn't confer the social approval that comes with the idea of marriage -- but only a minority favor the idea of "gay marriage," which would cover both angles.

That position -- not objecting to the idea of civil unions, but not liking the idea of gay marriage -- seems to me a reasonable position. Objecting to gay marriage is unreasonable only if one believes that heterosexual marriage is purely a social construct, and does not reflect any inherent qualities of the human mind or any inherent traits that make the two sexes complementary, and that therefore there is no significant social benefit to the continuation of heterosexuality (or at least the pretense of it) as a "gold standard" of behavior. But I do believe that the sexes are complementary, and that this difference is one of the most fundamental things that apply to the human mind as time goes by, so I'm leery of the long-term effects of expanding the definition of marriage.

Gug has hit it on the head. The debate has actually become two-fold regarding the benefits of "marriage" and the definition of the social bond we call "marriage". The problem I have with those who oppose same-sex marriage is that their is no Constitutional basis for so doing. In fact, I believe the Equal Protection clause prevents our government from restricting benefits based on an arbitrary or purely religious basis. You see, marriage as recognized by the state is a legal fiction. It is an adoption of a traditionally religious name to label a purely legal relationship. To me, it echoes the debates over mixed race marriages.

Now, that is not to say I do not believe that private and religious groups must be compelled to perform or sanction these marriages- quite the opposite. But state actors follow a different set of rules. In our nation, the state may not take any action that unless the Constitution allows it. I do not believe that the Constitution, which requires equal access to government benefits for citizens, allows the government to discriminate between allowing marriage benefits based on, essentially, gender.

Trying to debate the semantics of "marriage" and a "civil union" is pointless and recalls the abhorrent "separate but equal" philosophy. Allowing Americans to marry who they wish in no way weakens or denigrates marriage, anymore than allowing homosexuals to form corporations denigrates that legal fiction. I find it odd that people insist that the state status of marriage is somehow sancrosanct, despite a divorce rate among heterosexuals approaching 50%. I respect the individual freedom to choose a religion and moral system, but do not think the state needs to be imposing this on anyone. Marriage is no exception.

I find it sad that it took so long to recognize that consenting sexual behavior between same sex adults is not *criminal* and I hope future generations are not so intolerant. The words I see coming from youth across the country reassure me that our ideal egalitarian nation may be more obtainable than some may believe.

I personally used to think they shouldn't have MARRAIGE because marraige is SUPPOSED to be a church tradition. Now it has turned into a legal government binding document that gives you tax cuts/etc. I used to think civil unions were what they need. But then I learned about all of the benifeits of marraige, and not letting them marry is just discrimination now.

It's like saying a black woman can't marry a white man because something in the bible says something about non-race-mixed marraiges (Not that I know anything about the bible.).

However, something I learned just today in my english class, is that a lot of this gay marraige stuff could help save our culture from going down the drain, and make it so we don't travel down the dead-end path of the Romans and Greeks. Though that isn't really the sae things considering a few thousand years difference, but I can see why they want to keep decency. Our culture is going down the gutter, and regardles sif your aithiest or not, you have to agree that the bible teaches you good behavior and morals, not always necissarely "there is a god" based, and stuff like letting more sex on TV, legalizing automatic weapons (This is an OUTRAGE to me. You'd have to be a moron to think the common man have a use for the automatic weapon other than for gunning down multiple people! unless we have another country invading us, there is just no point in it. Crime 99% of the time isn't created by MULTIPLE criminals, and you'd never carry an automatic down the street because of it's size. It's just stupid. Anyways...), and legalizing gay marraige is viewed by some people as making our morals go down the drain.

However, in my oppinion, I'd have to say that when there really isn't that many gay people in the world (Although the number is growing, as my best friend is a lesbian), I'd have to say legalizing gay marraige isn't going to hurt anything, ESPECIALLY since gay people are going to be gay no matter what you do. Well, at least the non-posers.

I had this discussion with someone a while ago, his only arguement was that he believed gay marriage was wrong without any reasoning other than the Bible says so. As of right now, I can't see anything wrong with it. It does not affect me, and it could help strengthen a bond between two peoples lives(economically, and socially). Not to mention that we are supposed to be a country that accepts all kinds of people and beliefs, and denying someone a right given to everyone else just because their sexual orientation is different kind of seems like discrimination to me. I mean really, there is no actual reason not to let same sex couples get married, or at least a good reason.

Why wouldn't I let my child spend the night at a gay couple's house? What's the difference? You act as if gay couples are child molesters or something along those lines. Just because a couple are straight doesn't mean they don't have child molesting tendencies. They only thing that would stop me from allowing my child to spend the night at a gay couple's house would be if one, or both for that much, were accused of child molesting. And as for allowing my child to learn standards and ethics from a gay person, hmmm, I don't believe I'd be too happy with that, because, obviously, a gay person would have different views of different subjects.

Grei wrote:

I'd like to stay away from any discussion of child molestation. Yeah I know using the word sleep over and gay makes people think of M. Jackson though it wasn't my intention. Sure your child isn't going to be molested by anyone who knows the difference between right and wrong be they straight or gay. They're just going over to the gay couples house for the night to hang out with their friend, eat some popcorn maybe watch a few musicals, harmless kid friendly stuff.

At the same time they are a kid and being one are influenced by everything and everyone around them. Their friend, the son or daughter of the gay couple, has been taught by their homosexual parents and is now teaching your child, as a peer, how they look at things. You say you wouldn't be to happy with your kid learning standards and ethics from a gay person, well it's not like, outside of school, kids are taught by sitting them down and lecturing them.

Er, rubbish.
So you wouldn't want your daughter to stay at a lesbian couple's house, in case they get raped in the middle of the night?
As opposed to letting your daughter stay at a straight couple's house, in case they get raped in the middle of the night?

What's wrong with a kid being "influenced" by a homosexual person? Are you in some way trying to say that because of their sexuality, they are wrong, and they shouldn't be allowed to teach people?

Grei wrote:

Go back and re-read the first post I made in this thread. I'm not talking about my personal beliefs.

Ack, it's very late, and I blame you for not being clear.
Sorry, I retract what I said in my post if it doesn't make sense/is incorrect.

If it's still valid though, by all means read my words, baby!

I myself think it should be allowed yes. But not let them adopt children because children deserve a dad and a mom.

Well Grei, my uncle just so happens to be gay. Along with 50 of his other friends. Yes, I said 50, possibly more (he has so many friends it is not even funny). I have been around them since I was born. A lot. And look at me! I am not gay. I am straight. I do not act flammboyant. I was not molested. Actually, my uncle and his friends are probably the funniest most coolest people I have ever met. They are damn funny, I can tell you that. Next time you decide to say gay people are child molesters, make sure you state specific people. To me, it sounded like you meant all gay people.