Kat says,

I have used this several times.































Fanta says,

GET OUT OF MY HEAD WOMEN!!!!

If people do not believe marriage is for gays then they need not marry someone of the same sex. How does it become their business for all?

Noone should have to fight to get married if they are of age and of mental capacity.

Wiki:

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[26][27] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[28] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding;[26] if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.

It's really hard to say where the Gov became involved.
Little by little?????

I said this in a lot less words!

But you didn't say, "adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts".

It's not really all that hard. History is pretty clear. Anthropologists have found evidence of marriage ever since the end of the Neolithic period. A study of history, since that time, indicated that 'men' used marriage as a means of gaining wealth as women were highly prized things to have, especially those who were the most furtile and produced the most and healthiest babies.

Later political structures used marriage as a means for taxation, and eventually when the Western world and religion developed side by side, political structures were happy to gain access to well kept registries of the Church, to control the people by mainting class structures, like keeping surfs in perpetual surfdom and again for taxation purposes. Sometime in the 1600's laws began to appear with regards to 'marriage'. Many of these 'common' laws were then brought into early American Politics.

And thus America retained the first laws, related to marriage, regarding inheritance and benefactors for trusts and such things. While this had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion - at some point Christians "believed" these laws were supportive of religious beliefs.

So Yellowrose - THAT is how any discussion of marriage, in the U.S., involves the Christian faction, THEY put it there. To some Christians marriage is not only part of American law but IT IS AS PRESCRIBED in the Bible.

The truth is that marriage in the U.S. is a secular contract between the STATE and the parties who are jointly signing the agreement. In Religion, the marriage contract is between God, and the parties making the agreement.

But the greatest majority of Christians in this country, don't seem to believe that.

So when any discussion about the legalities of same-sex marriage is brought up, naturaly religion will be too, or there would be no question to discuss. Legally, according to the Constitution, there would be no reason to deny marriage to any TWO, otherwise legal entities. Of course DOMA "Defense of Marriage Act" began the whole idea that the words in our legal code should be changed AND THAT is what is being challenged.

The American public did not have the opportunity to vote on DOMA it was simply initiated at the top level.

BUT NOW - people are forced to FIGHT for a right that WAS originally guanteed under the law for centuries. And who is the fight with? Christians who would oppose changing the words, as conceptualized under DOMA by a single hand.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I can tell you the greatest offence was to EVERY AMERICAN who accepted DOMA, because THEY have accepted the heavy handed power of a DICTATORSHIP. I, personally, think it's hypocritical that so many Christians fight to keep a DICTATED law, but still look to the Constitution of a representitive republic to protect their right to worship as they please.
PROTECTION under a Constitutional, representitive republic, can not be a one way street, only a dictatorship works that way.

Hmmm. I always thought that me being in a locker room protects the girl from seeing me and losing her control.

If she wants to try her luck, she's welcome to take a look, any day she decides to enter my locker room.

What's the big deal?

It's crazy how, most of the people I know are either divorced or going through divorce. Marriage scares the hell out of me.

Maybe when your 8 year old in undressing alone in her locker room and some cross dressing pervert removes all of his clothes and walks around nude.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[26][27] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[28] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding;[26] if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.