so you want adults to be free to do what they want, but at the same time want it to be ok to effectively ostracize them if they go against YOUR personal morality........you can't have it both ways here. Pick a side.

Straight people aren't pushing their sexuality on others either.

I'll have some of what he's smoking!

Eventually all will realize that it isn't their concern to mandate who loves who as long as age and mental consent is considered. If they want to marry or have a civil union they should be able to do either or both if they want.

most already realize they cant 'mandate' who anyone 'loves'

nor do most want to

the issue is who one beds

and IM sure 'everyone' wont condone homosexual behavior anymore thaneveryone will condone incest

but most will buy into the 'all that matters is consent' nonsense,,,

As we all know, homophobia can also mean having a strong dislike or aversion to homosexuality. You have that.

I am pro same same-sex marriage between two consenting adults because I buy into the following definitions of equality, liberty, due process, and civil rights...

Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Definition of EQUALITY

1: the quality or state of being equal

Definition of DUE PROCESS
n.
An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

Definition of CIVIL RIGHTS

The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

when the government is involved, where licensing is involved, where being sanctioned is involved

liberty has nothing to do with it

liberty doesnt mean we are able to be a licensed doctor just because we are a citizen

it doesnt mean we can be a licensed teacher just because we are a citizen

it still means we can give treatment to people WITHOUT the license so long as both are consenting

it still means we can teach people without a license as long as both are consenting

similarly, it doesnt mean our relationship has to be licensed by government

although it means we are still free to have relationship as long as both are consenting

...marriage is not a guaranteed privilege anymore than any other process involving licensing is,,,


at least it wasnt before the LGBT agenda went into effect and gaines such political and financial power,,,,

Flipping the facts won't change the meaning....The fact is states do have laws and those laws must apply equally under the U.S. Constitution...What applies to some must apply to all...If you want government out of it then marriage for EVERYONE SHOULD BE BANNED...I hate to think what we, as a nation, might be facing without some of those laws though...

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.
The specifications for obtaining a marriage license vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the license is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's license, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required, by someone who had been previously married in some states).
The US states of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Mississippi[4][5]and the District of Columbia in the past did have a requirement to have a blood test before obtaining a marriage licence, but have since been abolished.
Many states require 1 to 6 days to pass between the granting of the license and the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, both spouses and the officiant sign the marriage license (some states also require a witness). The officiant or couple then files for a certified copy of the marriage license and a marriage certificate with the appropriate authority. Some states also have a requirement that a license be filed within a certain time after its issuance, typically 30 or 60 days, following which a new license must be obtained.
Marriage licenses in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the state in which the ceremony is performed; however, the marriage is generally recognized across the country through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. In some instances, as is the case with same-sex marriages, other states may not recognize a marriage license from another state.[6] The state in which they are married holds the record of that marriage. Traditionally, working with law enforcement was the only means of searching and accessing marriage license information across state lines.[7]

Controversy in the US
Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary and/or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.[8][9] Libertarians argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.[10] Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman presided over by the Christian God, so no authorization from the state is required. In some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract[11] which is seen by some as an infringement.[12]
Marriage licenses have also been the subject of controversy for affected minority groups. Perhaps most notably, California's Proposition 8 has been the subject of heavy criticism by advocates of same-sex marriage.[13] including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community whose ability to marry is often limited by state regulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

morning sweety

most already realize they cant 'mandate' who anyone 'loves'

nor do most want to

the issue is who one beds

and IM sure 'everyone' wont condone homosexual behavior anymore thaneveryone will condone incest

but most will buy into the 'all that matters is consent' nonsense,,,

I am pro same same-sex marriage between two consenting adults because I buy into the following definitions of equality, liberty, due process, and civil rights...

Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Definition of EQUALITY

1: the quality or state of being equal

Definition of DUE PROCESS
n.
An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

Definition of CIVIL RIGHTS

The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

What a ludicrous statement! For someone to dislike an abnormal behavior does not make them phobic.

What a ludicrous statement! For someone to dislike an abnormal behavior does not make them phobic.

It's not ludicrous. You don't have to be afraid of homosexuals to be a homophobe. Here's the definition from merriam-webster:

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

It also includes hatred toward them, which many here seem to display.

Eventually all will realize that it isn't their concern to mandate who loves who as long as age and mental consent is considered. If they want to marry or have a civil union they should be able to do either or both if they want.

it involves irrational fear, aversion , or discrimination

I dont have any irrational fear, irrational aversion, or irrational discrimination, personally

I think people are PEOPLE , I dont treat ehem as their sexual preference, but I Can still find certain sexual behaviors deviant,,,,

irrational?
who defines that? now i'm irrational and "homophobic"?
lol, it just pisses you off when someone can't agree with you...