I had a debate over gay marriage.
against three mormons.
it went marvelous.
I won.
of course.
I need a gay flag for my porch.
it'll look nice compared to all the confederate flags up in this town.

You could also choose what's behind Door Number Two ... be a 'Gay Confederate Mormon' ... wtf ...

Well - maybe then, the guy who want to shove us all in a closet and burn it, might think twice.

It did not cross my mind (DUDE)

There are only two problems I have with this, but first let me say I am for gay marriage.

My first problem, the voters voted against it. A judge overturning the will of the voters, first off set's a dangerous precident and it is the same kind of **** we faught in the Revolutionary way.

Second, the judge should have recused himself vrom the case since he has a potential stake in the matter. The Judge is gay and has a partner he wants to marry. That is biased right there. Now it will get overturned and will be re-tried or appealed at the tax payers expense.

Like I said don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage but this is wrong.

Oh, you're just so CUUUUUTE when you try to be funny ... !

You're ok with voters voting away rights of minorities then?

If the judge had been straight and the ruling went the other way, by your logic, that judge would have been biased as well, right? So, I'm guessing you think there should have been a bisexual judge?

since when is gay a minority? you guys are grasping for stings, huh....

The courts have on several occasions overruled laws that, even though voted on by the majority, are in violation of the constitution.

The government itself shouldn't have any say in who marries who. The only concern the government should have when it comes to marriage is did they pay for the license. In truth, the only reason to be married, as far as government is concerned, is to allow for the tax status of filing jointly. Even so, the marriage certificate is not required to do so.

If laws are put on the books that allow the government to determine who marries who, how far do we take it? What if someone decides to "sue" for the right to marry on the basis that they could be a better "provider?" If the government is allowed to determine who you can't "marry," how long before they determine who you can?

In the decision it was stated that it isn't the job of the government to decides who marries, and it is the correct decision. Marriage itself is a religious ritual, not a government one and should be held seperate from the state. Even plural marriage shouldn't be held illegal by government standards, in my opinion, because in the end, it's none of the government's business.

you know its kinda funny, I keep hearing various things about what marriage is for...

To procreate--well my mom and many like her have proven that you don't need to be married to procreate...heck adam & ever weren't married and they procreated just fine.

To create a balanced family -- who is to say what a balanced family is? My family did just fine without a mother and a father.

Marriage is a religious institution-- thats funny because when marriage first came around it wasn't religious. People did arranged marriages for money and power not for love or religion.

To me marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper that allows you to do what you have been doing all along. I will never get married but that is my choice, I can't help who I love and it's most certainly not women, of that I am 100% sure. As far as guys go, i am looking for the same thing everyone else is, someone to grow old with but i do not need marriage to do it.

There you have it

you certainly allowed to be what you want, and i applaud you for the simple idea that you can love without the paper. i wish you the best, and hope you find that special someone.