yeah but that was then, this is now.

Well, why shouldnt we talk about incest? IF an argument for legal same sex marriage is based upon equality of rights, why should a brother and sister not share the right of a man with a man or a woman with a woman? This is a flaw in the argument that I have not seen anyone address logically? Everyone has never had a RIGHT to marriage. Marriage has been defined within specific guidelines which makes it more a privilege than a right. I am bi sexual, I have loved ones who are gay, I support their right to live the life they choose to live but I do not support tampering with marriage to do so. I believe it is every bit as reasonable to withhold the male female bond as it is to try and keep children from having Uncle dads and Aunt moms. The structure of marriage is a significant and logical one that does not need to be altered.

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness....for ALL.

I agree , the pursuit of happiness for all, but not marriage for all.

As I have implied, some brothers would be happy with their sisters. Let those sister lovers do what they want in their personal life but I wouldnt endorse expanding the definition of marriage to a commitment between a brother and a sister. Ths structure of marriage has reasons(even during a time when other cultural values are diminishing it). I did not need to be defined as white for my parents and their parents to fight to have equal rights. I am black and STILL have the rights of other races and likewise , marriage needs no redefinition either for homosexuals to have similar rights to other relationships.

*********************************************************************
i AGREE WITH YOU BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS . I just don't see where its my business . hump away children .

Fully agree with same sex marriage if your devoted happy and in love then why not its showing total commitment one day i hope to marry the girl of my dreams i just have to find her 1st!! Anna x

I always thought marriage was a union of souls not a union of genitals but apparently since marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, love doesn't matter just their genitals.

I am all for equal marriage rights but it should be made clear that churches are not required to perform said marriages, if they choose to then that's the churches decision.

Marriage itself grants many more rights than domestic partnerships or civil unions. It's not just those partnerships that have to be reworded but also the business that can choose to ignore them. It won't do alot of good to fix the partnerships if they continue to be ignored.

How does same sex marriage link into incest? I'm surprised you didn't throw in bestiality in there. That love is different and that is wrong. Incest isn't okay, yet in California it's legal for first cousins to marry. So incest does exist. I don't see how same sex marriage is a flaw. How does it personally affect you? It doesn't. What about single parents? should we treat them as second class citizens because they don't have the opposite sex in the house? Studies conducted on children in each imaginable situation have concluded that children in same sex homes are more artistic, tolerant, and have higher self esteem. Flaws were that they were bullied, but that's a part of childhood. I can't think of anyone I know that wasn't bullied. Many kids need homes out there, so I don't see why we should try to prevent that from happening. You're a bisexual? No offense, but that explains a lot.

Exactly you are right. same here!

I agree with you with the religion and church part completely. and you're absolutely right.

I will disagree with you. (though I personally don't mind same sex marriage). Most people that don't like it is not because of "equal rights" it is about marriage. To many people marriage is a religious event. It is in the bible and the bible has been around a lot longer than our country and its ideas of equal rights.

If gays just want the same rights and the religious dont want them to get married and both of those are the true beliefs, then howcome there is so much arguement when it comes to the discussion of civil union. What I mean is call it a civil union but give them all the same rights. It seems that this would be the middle ground, but it never seems to work either.

Marriage isn't necessarily about religion, I'm agnostic and want to get married one day. The bible was written by man, and translated by man. This has nothing to do with the church or religion this is about recognition under the law.

Because civil unions don't grant the same benefits and protections that marriage provide, that's why there's a big fuss.

Do we really need to go over this gay marriage topic over and over again?It already has been established that gay marriage is not a right,never has been a right,and never will be a right because marriage itself has never been a right.Marriage is and never has been part of a local or federal government nor is marriage mentioned in the constitution.Marriage is still a private institution and tradation that has nothing at all to do with Government or the United states of America.It has always been up to the general public to decide who should get married and what marriage is.

You think marriage is a right?Go to court and claim your marriage rights have been violated.They will have no idea what you are talking about.If someone wants to divorce you are you going to claim your rights are being violated since someone is ending your marriage?

Marriage is a status that is allowed by the state assigning certain privileges and responsibilities to a couple mainly to benifit the state. Things like taxes, property joint ownership. inheritance by children, and custody of not only cheldren but dependent spouses.

While many couples also assign religious meanings that is a personal meaning and not enforceable by staute. You do not need a licsense for the religious ceremony and is not binding even if the clergy's right to marry is recognized by the state if that license is not presented.

I personally think that there are many definitions of marriage that do not jive with clergys defination of marriage and to deprive same sex individuals their definition is narrow minded and clearly discriminatory.

In a time of wasteful seperate but not equal benifits I find the alternative definitions of domestic partner or what ever un-needed and unneccesary expense of time and paperwork. Rather than trying to develope alternative definitions why don't we just review the laws concerning marriage for all so they are more fair and adequate to the needs of families. Especially the children.

I truely don't think any conversation is to be ruled out just because some people don't want it discussed.

Since I directly saw votes being manipulated not only unfairly but also illegally around this issue I hardly think it is a dead issue.

Yes we do because everyone should be entitled to it. It's spelled tradition btw. Well how would you feel if you couldn't marry someone you wanted to spend the rest of your life with because strangers said no? Tradition? You want to talk about tradition? Lynching, Flogging, and all that nonsense was tradition does that mean it's okay? Lynching wasn't okay, and with experience we grow. I don't see how it would affect you.

Despite not all marriages are religious, it does not mean that is not considered a religious event. In Christian religions it is considered a union under God. Even if you do not agree with them it doesn't mean that is not their belief. You are allowed to get married, right now it just means you have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

My point is not about a civil union as it is written now. It is more along that idea in the southpark episode. Have all the same rights, but call it something different.

I know we say there should be a seperation btw church and state, but we must also realize our country was founded by christians trying to find a place to practice their faith without fear. Its in our pledge (one nation under God) on our money (in God we trust).

Oh I agree with you in some things. But the state I live in was inhabited by people already, the Europeans just came over and killed the original owners of the land.

since I'm not in this position, can you explain it to me.

everyone can have a ceremony (doesn't even have to be in a church) This is basically for sentiments and memories

now legally is different. Even though there is common law, it's recognized by the government and a legal marriage has benefits.

So even though you can have a ceremony, you just wouldn't be recognized by the government.

Is it the recognition and marriage benefits that you want? If so....I have nothing against that. As long as it's between consenting adults, then it's not my business. I was just curious if it's being recognized as legal that is what is important.

Yes that's exactly right. The recognition and benefits is what matters to me. That's what it comes down to.

ok....thank you for answering that.

well I have been married and divorced and the legal part isn't all it's cracked up to be If I EVER do that again...I'm keeping the legal part out of it as much as possible lol