[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Turias:
If "Holy Matrimony" is at all recognized by the state, then there is not enough separation for me.

Then Marriage is not enough separation for you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Um... Holy Matrimony. Holy use as a adjective here, is it not?

Fine. Then show me a secular use of the adjective "Holy."

Face it. It's a religious word, with purely religious connotations. The state can't embrace and endorse that because it would cross the line into establishing religion. The test is called the Lemon Test.

You will just have to find another word and make sure that the purpose is colorably secular. For example, if you want this to be a super form of marriage with no possibility of divorce, then it has to be available to couples who want to be married by a judge, not a priest.

[Turias]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Then Marriage is not enough separation for you.

Isn't that the point of this thread?

[netgear]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and they would say (and I've heard it personally), "you don't love me enough to show any commitment?"

It's a circular argument with no winners.

Not really. We are committed to our other loved ones without legal documentation or rings.

Anytime a woman brings up that kind of threat "oh you don't really love me unless you legally marry me" then I show her the door.

If I share my house, give you a car key, and put you on my bank account then that should be enough signs to show commitment.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Turias:
Isn't that the point of this thread?

Nope, we are discussion homosexuality and marriage vs. civil unions. Not Marriage is too religios.

[Turias]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Nope, we are discussion homosexuality and marriage vs. civil unions. Not Marriage is too religios.

Ah, sorry. I forgot what my thread is about.

Anyway, I think I implied that theme in a bunch of my original posts. Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fine. Then show me a secular use of the adjective "Holy."

Face it. It's a religious word, with purely religious connotations. The state can't embrace and endorse that because it would cross the line into establishing religion. The test is called the Lemon Test.

You will just have to find another word and make sure that the purpose is colorably secular.

You really find the word "Holy" to be too religious in nature? Just look up the definition for "holy". Maybe the word "holy" did originate from religion, but it has evolve into a meaning that is not strictly religious anymore.

The Lemon Test:
--------------
According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose"
---------------

Holy Matrimony fits right in with "secular or civic purpose."

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

For example, if you want this to be a super form of marriage with no possibility of divorce, then it has to be available to couples who want to be married by a judge, not a priest.

Agree with this point. I already restated that the only difference between Marriage and Holy Matrimony will be that Holy Matrimony will have stricter rules.

[hyteckit]

Come to think is it, Holy is the best adjective use to describe the stricter Marriage.

Dictionary.com

3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system.

6. Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence.

[hyteckit]

Okay, how about "immaculate" if you don't like the word "Holy".

Immaculate Marriage

Doesn't sound as cool as Holy Matrimony though.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
I already restated that the only difference between Marriage and Holy Matrimony will be that Holy Matrimony will have stricter rules.

Aside from the name, yes, I think you could establish a voluntary second tier marriage providing it isn't just institutionalizing a specific religious practice and assuming there isn't any state constitutional problem. But what has this to do with gay marriage?

[cpt kangarooski]

hyteckit--

So Holy Matrimony is suppose to solve the above three and gays and lesbians can now get marriage just like everybody else without violating the above 3.

Hm, now why does this remind me of the parable of the star-bellied sneeches?

Covenant sounds too much like Christianity.

Oh, certainly. I mean it's not as though there were notable covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses or David.

[Mr. Bob]

Let me restate some of my points as I see you are confused on a few.

If you change the law to allow gay people to get married, then why can you not change the law to let a brother and sister get married? Again, why can you not change the law allowing the legal age for marriage? You must crack open the entire egg. If someone truly loves their sister, how can you say they cannot marry her, but someone who truly loves the same sex can? Its hypocritical. Again, if someone truly loves their 9 year old, why are they different then someone who truly loves someone of the same sex?

There is one and only one extenuation, one man and one woman. Because that is all it takes to make children. Logically, no one should get married, except for one man and one woman because it is the only extenuation.

Now when you think of uneven relationship, well that is opinion. That�s like saying homosexual marriage is okay but polygamy is not. Polygamy creates a very imbalance relationship for woman. How can you agree to one and not to the other? It�s the same exact thing.

Also on the right to adopt children.

I meant that having gay people adopt children, because people are horrible parents �as in the people to give their children away, not the people wanting to adopt� goes into a list of extenuating circumstances.

-----Ois�n said
Also, I am pretty sure that your mother didn�t choose to die, however gay people choose to get married.
-----

I am also somewhat confused what you brought up this comment, but I see now. It is indeed a good point, but you cannot disregard the fact that people ware meant to be raised by one mother and one father. Not one father and 3 women.

-----Ois�n said
So why was it just as prevalent during periods of history where it was most certainly not considered to be okay, periods where you could be executed for it?
-----

This is just the opposite effect. You cannot just completely accept it, or completely deny it. Both are just as wrong. Gay bashing is just as bad as saying being gay is completely okay, and then changing institutions around it. Homosexuals need to admit that they have an disorder. I need glasses, I am not saying �it�s a different life, leave me alone�. I know I have a disorder, and choose to get it rectified. Needing glasses and being homosexual is the same, there is something against order. Just like drinking through your nose. However, homosexuality interferes with the 4 f�s, �feeding, flighting, fighting, mating�. These instants were made to ensure the survival of the species. The problem with America is that think when anyone choose any kind of lifestyle, that it must be acceptable, or else you are a bad person �again, people in America only see black and white�.

If you are gay, that�s okay, but I would recommend that you get some treatment. I don�t see anything wrong if someone has a disorder. I don�t think that people with down syndrome should have hard lives, but saying �he doesn�t have a problem, its just its how he wants to live his life� is wrong. First step to fixing a problem, is understanding that one exists. People should help in fixing a problem, �which does not bean burning people who are gay�, but not just blowing it off as a live choice.

-----Ois�n said
Of course it feels good to other animals too - but other animals will instinctively only allow for it to happen when it's supposed to, ie. when conception is possible. When we started to have sex at other times, when conception was impossible, that's when sex went from being procreation to being fun.

Take eating as an example. We need to eat, otherwise we die. It's incorporated in our genes that we need to eat. It's like that for all animals. But we're the only ones to combine food the way we do. We're the only ones to process food, to make dishes, to invent new forms of food. No other animal does that. Why not? Because other animals eat to stay alive. To them, even though eating might be pleasurable, it basically has no other function than to stay alive.

We, on the other hand, constantly evolve our cooking, because eating isn't about surviving for (most of) the human race anymore - it's about pleasure. We eat though we don't need to. We eat things that are extremely bad for us. Because we like it, it's pure pleasure. That's where we go beyond what our genes tell us, just like we do with sex.
-----

After all what you said, it seems that you agree with me. The final reason is for making children. Yes, people seem to do things for pleasure too. But just because we like to make food taste good, doesn�t mean that our stomach was meant to make us happy. You can make dogs happy by petting them, although they were never meant to be petted. The bottom line is, sex is meant for making families. It feels good, but that is based on the fact that it is meant to make families, not the other way around. Hell, its okay to make yourself happier, �cooking your food, having sex but not wanting a child�, but its like driving a car. Cars were meant to go from point a to b. It can be fun, but that is the side effect of driving. And trust me, I love driving, but I understand cars first and foremost purpose is a to b.

-----Ois�n said
No, I choose any kind of marriage (with certain limitations pertaining to species, age, etc., as already mentioned)
-----

Putting this premise through the logical grinder, it doesn�t hold up. Any kind of marriage, BUT the ones that I don�t like. That�s like saying I think everyone should get on the bus, except for the races that I don�t like. You believe on limiting who should be on the bus to what you find acceptable, while me I say �Either the bus is for everyone, or no one. But, one woman and one man is different, solely because that is all it takes to make children.

Again, one man and one woman is the ONLY extenuation of all the groups who want marriage. It has been an institution long before any other, because of its simple nature. Even animals can have the equivalent of spouses.

Now you may not believe that marriage is for children, that is my opinion. BUT, if you agree to gay marriage, then you also must agree to every other form of marriage. Or be a hypocrite.

Again, I believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay, just like there is nothing wrong with me having glasses. My eyes were not born right. Some people do not have their sexual instincts born right. However, I cannot be a pilot in the AF because of my vision. I don�t want that to change. I would love to fly, but it cannot happen. Because they would have to accept everyone else. If I can accept the fact that I was born not to fly, other people can suck life up through a straw too.

I can get lasik and hope that I can be accepted, just as gay people can get psychological help. But me saying �my eyes really are not bad� is not proper thinking. I have a disorder, and so do gay people. You call it a fluke, which is just a nicer more PC way of saying it. I say get over the fact that people are not born perfect. I did a long time ago.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
You must crack open the entire egg.

No, you don't. The only people who hold that view are those that are against changing it, making it all or none in an effort to prevent any change.

[cpt kangarooski]

Can we please leave the age issue out of it? To be of age is not in itself one of the requirements for eligibility to marry. Consent is. And no one, but no one, is advocating forcing marriages on unconsenting persons. Age is just used here as an indicator for one's ability to consent in the first place.

If you're too young, you can't consent, and lacking consent, you can't marry.

To go against the commonplace notion that the ability to consent to things, enter into binding agreements, etc. is something that comes with age would certainly make for an interesting discussion, but it's not really that related to this one, and it has a lot of ramifications in diverse areas besides.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Dakar:
No, you don't. The only people who hold that view are those that are against changing it, making it all or none in an effort to prevent any change.

Yes, you do.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Yes, you do.

Oh, no, you don't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Turias:
The government needs to stop recognizing marriages. The government should deal with civil unions and only civil unions. If a man and a woman want to have their relationship recognized by the state, fine, they apply for a civil union. The same thing happens with homosexual couples.

Then, if a couple wants to have their union recognized by their church, great, they go through their church and become married in the eyes of God.

There is only one problem. What happens when some churches decide to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, as has already happened in some states?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
There is only one problem. What happens when some churches decide to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, as has already happened in some states?

That's a strictly religious issue, and none of the government's concern.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Oh, no, you don't.

If you believe homosexuals can get married then all people must be allowed to marry if free to do so.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
There is only one problem. What happens when some churches decide to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, as has already happened in some states?

Recognition doesn't make it legal.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
If you change the law to allow gay people to get married, then why can you not change the law to let a brother and sister get married? Again, why can you not change the law allowing the legal age for marriage? You must crack open the entire egg. If someone truly loves their sister, how can you say they cannot marry her, but someone who truly loves the same sex can? Its hypocritical. Again, if someone truly loves their 9 year old, why are they different then someone who truly loves someone of the same sex?

There is one and only one extenuation, one man and one woman. Because that is all it takes to make children. Logically, no one should get married, except for one man and one woman because it is the only extenuation.

Now when you think of uneven relationship, well that is opinion. That�s like saying homosexual marriage is okay but polygamy is not. Polygamy creates a very imbalance relationship for woman. How can you agree to one and not to the other? It�s the same exact thing.

No, it's not the same exact thing. One is homosexual marriage and one is polygamy.

You're making the common, mistaken assumption that society is unable to exercise judgment in making its laws. But that's the very nature of lawmaking in a democracy - the benefits are weighted against the risks, usually resulting in gradations. Thus, a person who is 18 years old can vote, but a person who is one day shy of 18 can't, even if the younger is more mature and knowledgeable than the older, because society has made the collective judgment that 18 is a reasonable if not infallible cut-off point. Similarly, society is free to make the collective judgment that gays should be entitled to the same legal rights as straights without also extending those rights to 9-year olds and polygamists. There's no rule that says "If you OK it for gays, you have to OK it for incest" - you basically made that rule up.

Gay adults can enter into contracts like any other class of adults. No one would argue that if you let gays enter into contracts, you also have to let 9 year olds. And if you think of marriage as a contract, with rights and obligations enforced by the state, there's no reason why it shouldn't be available to people of the same sex, apart from the fact that some people just can't get used to the idea of homosexuality.

If it's consistency that you're after, by what measure should Liza Minnelli be allowed to marry David Guest? Talk about gay marriage . . .

Now, if you held that marriage should be reserved exclusively for procreation, and annulled if procreation fails, sorta like Henry VIII, I could buy your argument. I would regard it as archaic and unrealistic and imprudent, but it would be consistent.

Homosexuals need to admit that they have an disorder. I need glasses, I am not saying �it�s a different life, leave me alone�. I know I have a disorder, and choose to get it rectified. Needing glasses and being homosexual is the same, there is something against order. Just like drinking through your nose. However, homosexuality interferes with the 4 f�s, �feeding, flighting, fighting, mating�. These instants were made to ensure the survival of the species. The problem with America is that think when anyone choose any kind of lifestyle, that it must be acceptable, or else you are a bad person �again, people in America only see black and white�.

If you are gay, that�s okay, but I would recommend that you get some treatment. I don�t see anything wrong if someone has a disorder. I don�t think that people with down syndrome should have hard lives, but saying �he doesn�t have a problem, its just its how he wants to live his life� is wrong. First step to fixing a problem, is understanding that one exists. People should help in fixing a problem, �which does not bean burning people who are gay�, but not just blowing it off as a live choice.

Treatment for what? To be more attracted to members of the opposite sex? How is that done? More importantly, what's the point? As far as we know, homosexuality has been around forever, and it hasn't hindered the survival of the species. It's just a variation in sexual preference, like preferring blondes to brunettes or oranges to apples. You didn't choose your preferences, did you?

If 2% of the population is gay, it isn't the norm. But that doesn't mean it's a pathology - it just means it's a normal variation, like being redheaded. Unlike your poor eyesight, neither condition is a disability - gays can reproduce with women, they just don't feel like it.

I don't think it serves to reduce all of human experience to either/or. If you did, how would you account for the infinite variety of preferences among even heterosexuals? The fact is that nature loves variety and diversity - without it, most species would die off. I'm not sure what might be adaptive about homosexuality but nature seems to insist on providing for it. I fail to see what would be gained by getting "treatment" for it.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
If you believe homosexuals can get married then all people must be allowed to marry if free to do so.

It's not all or none proposition. All that needs to be changed is the descrimination by gender.

That has no bearing on polygamy.
That has no bearing on incestous relationships.

[lurkalot]

In reply to this message written by Turias.

First chop:
Some religions have adopted marriage into their rituals for their "congregation". No dispute there. That still doesn't make marriage a religious institution. The NFL has fairly recently made specific rules for their league based on an existing sport. Doesn't mean that football is now a NFL sport. Merely one variation.
There is no religious ownership or controlling interest of the institution of marriage. Not originally and still not today. There are religious aspects in some marriages but the institution of marriage itself is secular.

Once again. Marriage existed in many places including the Americas before christianity was even a religion and certainly before christianity reached these continents.

For now nothing will change about the religious ceremonies but as tolerance spreads -because same sex marriages will obviously not destroy western civilization and the american way of life as we imagine it- so will bigotry decline. Cause and effect.

Second chop:
As others have already pointed out that separation of state and religion is already there and is fundamental. It applies for marriage.

I recognize that getting most religious groups to accept same sex marriages taking place in their own communities in their own holy places according to their rituals in the eyes of their god(s) will probably take a lot longer than getting the Constitutional rights recognized for all these marriage applicants. Getting the Constitutional rights to equal treatment -that already exist- respected by the Government obviously has priority.

Hopefully with time the acceptance of married same sex couples within religious groups will also happen and if they so desire marriage ceremonies will be performed for them in their own church or temple. It is pretty obvious that homosexuals have always been members of religious organizations so it would be only natural to have their marriages sanctified within their own religious organization as well. Hopefully these religious groups will one day stop applying their own rules selectively to stop condoning discrimination and bigotry. It will depend on the tolerance of their membership. Not much reason to put much stock in that today but evolution is by definition a slow process.

Third chop
The compromise is not the President's to offer either. He can't initiate laws. Certainly not laws that violate the constitution. DOMA will not stand under closer scrutiny from SCOTUS. There is no state interest to "defend". Marriage is not under attack. All current forms of marriage will continue to exist unchanged. A long overdue change will be made however to add the commitments made by same sex couples to this category of relationships. The long term vows are the same and the resulting marriages rightfully belong in this category. Same sex couples will be married in the United States just as they are married in the countries that accepted their fundamental rights and now perform their ceremonies.

One of these days same sex couples will have their own Loving v. Virginia. Discrimination on sex in marriage rules will not stand. When it falls so will eventually the right to refuse marriage to certain people within religious organizations. Without the right to choose a partner freely the fundamental right to marriage and the pursuit of happiness associated with it will be meaningless. Vermont recognized that civil union is marriage in all but name. It won't do to claim otherwise.

The placebo doesn't work for the test groups because the patients know they were given a placebo. Not to suggest that gays or religious people are sick of course with this one liner.

If you were merely asking questions I apologize for my "tone". There is nothing to discuss however. Civil union is marriage.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Dakar:
It's not all or none proposition. All that needs to be changed is the descrimination by gender.

That has no bearing on polygamy.
That has no bearing on incestous relationships.

Why not? How is opposing polygamy, incest, or the like any different than opposing marriage based on the gender of those getting married?

It's like arguing for equal rights for blacks but not Hispanics since they aren't black.

[Zimphire]

The Slippery Slope�

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Now, In Japan, I cannot really get married. See, if I fall in love with a Japanese woman, because I am not Japanese I cannot legally get married. We can live together, and do all kinds of husband/wife things together, but the Japanese government will only know us as being single.

Not true. International marriages take a bit more effort to register but will be recognized by the Japanese Government once the properly translated forms have been submitted. This is true whether you marry in your own country or have the ceremony performed in Japan. Check with your local ward office and your countries' consulate for the procedures. There are slight differences in the procedures depending on the prefecture. The Koseki and Juminhyo will be updated to reflect the marital status of the Japanese national.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Can we please leave the age issue out of it? To be of age is not in itself one of the requirements for eligibility to marry. Consent is. And no one, but no one, is advocating forcing marriages on unconsenting persons. Age is just used here as an indicator for one's ability to consent in the first place.

If you're too young, you can't consent, and lacking consent, you can't marry.

To go against the commonplace notion that the ability to consent to things, enter into binding agreements, etc. is something that comes with age would certainly make for an interesting discussion, but it's not really that related to this one, and it has a lot of ramifications in diverse areas besides.

Thank you! That was exactly my point! The age thing is something society has decided for a lot of areas, marriage being just one.

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
If you change the law to allow gay people to get married, then why can you not change the law to let a brother and sister get married? Again, why can you not change the law allowing the legal age for marriage? You must crack open the entire egg. If someone truly loves their sister, how can you say they cannot marry her, but someone who truly loves the same sex can? Its hypocritical. Again, if someone truly loves their 9 year old, why are they different then someone who truly loves someone of the same sex?

Because, as already mentioned many times, of consent. It is deemed by society that a nine-year-old is not able to consent for themselves. "One man and one woman" is not the only extenuation, as you keep saying. Because it's not "one man and one woman", it's "one man (excluding so and so) and one woman (excluding so and so)". There are already boundaries for marriage, which directly contradicts your all-or-nothing manifesto.

Now when you think of uneven relationship, well that is opinion. That�s like saying homosexual marriage is okay but polygamy is not. Polygamy creates a very imbalance relationship for woman. How can you agree to one and not to the other? It�s the same exact thing.

It most certainly is not! Polygamy does not necessarily create an imbalanced relationship. It can, yes, but not necessarily. Any marriage has the potential to create an uneven relationship, but with a father/daughter marriage it would be guaranteed.

I need glasses, I am not saying �it�s a different life, leave me alone�. I know I have a disorder, and choose to get it rectified. Needing glasses and being homosexual is the same, there is something against order.

Not at all! Needing glasses is very much different, first of all because it's something that impedes you physically in your everyday life (ie. you can't see properly without your glasses). Homosexuality doesn't.

Homosexuality has to do with our behavioural patterns, not with our physique. I don't think I have a disorder for being homosexual, and I don't think it's anything that needs to be "cured" as a disorder.

Unlike you needing glasses, if I don't get my homosexuality "fixed", that won't impede me from functioning properly. If you don't have glasses, your lack of sight will impede you from functioning properly.

However, homosexuality interferes with the 4 f�s, �feeding, flighting, fighting, mating�. These instants were made to ensure the survival of the species.

First of all, that's three f's and an m. Secondly, homosexuality can only ever interfere with the last one, and not even that if needs be. Being homosexual does not physically impede you from mating or having children; it just reduces the natural desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

The problem with America is that think when anyone choose any kind of lifestyle, that it must be acceptable, or else you are a bad person �again, people in America only see black and white�.

Any kind of lifestyle - as long as you're not hurting anybody!

And why is that a problem? We've already evolved to be so very different from all other species, this is just one more way. In many species, any member who doesn't fit the norm completely is chased out and killed. Would you like that better? (I certainly hope not)

As long as you're not hurting anybody with the way you live your life, I don't see any reason that you should be forced not to, or to be "cured" and live a "normal" life.

If you are gay, that�s okay, but I would recommend that you get some treatment. I don�t see anything wrong if someone has a disorder. I don�t think that people with down syndrome should have hard lives, but saying �he doesn�t have a problem, its just its how he wants to live his life� is wrong. First step to fixing a problem, is understanding that one exists. People should help in fixing a problem, �which does not mean burning people who are gay�, but not just blowing it off as a live choice.

Being gay is no more a life choice than suffering from Down's Syndrome. The difference is, again, that suffering from Down's Syndrome will impede you from functioning in everyday situations both mentally and physically. Being gay won't.

Suffering from Down's Syndrome is not necessarily a problem to the person suffering from it, because they know no other way. And just like homosexuality, Down's Syndrome is not something that can be "cured". Society just has to make certain allowances and adjustments to accommodate them.

Putting this premise through the logical grinder, it doesn�t hold up. Any kind of marriage, BUT the ones that I don�t like. That�s like saying I think everyone should get on the bus, except for the races that I don�t like. You believe on limiting who should be on the bus to what you find acceptable, while me I say �Either the bus is for everyone, or no one. But, one woman and one man is different, solely because that is all it takes to make children.

Not any kind of marriage but the ones I don't like. What I like and don't like has nothing to do with it. There are simply certain people that, due to their age or other circumstances, are not able to show consent. These people are not, and should not be, allowed to marry.

Besides those people, it's any kind of marriage.

Again, one man and one woman is the ONLY extenuation of all the groups who want marriage. It has been an institution long before any other, because of its simple nature. Even animals can have the equivalent of spouses.

And the equivalents of polygamy.

Now you may not believe that marriage is for children, that is my opinion. BUT, if you agree to gay marriage, then you also must agree to every other form of marriage. Or be a hypocrite.

Like I said, I agree to every other form of consentual marriage. If the marriage isn't consentual, I don't agree with it, nor should anyone else.

Again, I believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay, just like there is nothing wrong with me having glasses. My eyes were not born right. Some people do not have their sexual instincts born right. However, I cannot be a pilot in the AF because of my vision. I don�t want that to change. I would love to fly, but it cannot happen. Because they would have to accept everyone else. If I can accept the fact that I was born not to fly, other people can suck life up through a straw too.

You're comparing oranges to apples. It's like saying that if they allowed you with your glasses to pilot, then they'd also have to allow cats and dogs to pilot. Which of course they wouldn't, because they don't fulfill the basic necessities to fly a plane. Just like a minor doesn't fulfill the basic necessities to consent to marriage.

I can get lasik and hope that I can be accepted, just as gay people can get psychological help. But me saying �my eyes really are not bad� is not proper thinking.

Of course not, because if you did that, you'd end up with not functioning properly, a lifetime of migraines and it might even lead to brain damage. Homosexuality in itself will never do that to you. Homosexuality in itself won't lead to any kind of physical or mental problems.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Why not? How is opposing polygamy, incest, or the like any different than opposing marriage based on the gender of those getting married?

It's like arguing for equal rights for blacks but not Hispanics since they aren't black.

Actually, in your example, you're discriminating between races. Much as gay marriage is discrimination between genders.

[Mr. Bob]

Treatment for what? To be more attracted to members of the opposite sex? How is that done? More importantly, what's the point? As far as we know, homosexuality has been around forever, and it hasn't hindered the survival of the species. It's just a variation in sexual preference, like preferring blondes to brunettes or oranges to apples. You didn't choose your preferences, did you?

If 2% of the population is gay, it isn't the norm. But that doesn't mean it's a pathology - it just means it's a normal variation, like being redheaded. Unlike your poor eyesight, neither condition is a disability - gays can reproduce with women, they just don't feel like it.

I don't think it serves to reduce all of human experience to either/or. If you did, how would you account for the infinite variety of preferences among even heterosexuals? The fact is that nature loves variety and diversity - without it, most species would die off. I'm not sure what might be adaptive about homosexuality but nature seems to insist on providing for it. I fail to see what would be gained by getting "treatment" for it.

-----------------------------------------

There is a very large difference between wanting to have sex with redheads "which still makes children" and wanting to have sex with the same sex "which does not".

Diversity is good, if it makes children. But having sex with the same sex fails to do so.

The rest of your points have already been addressed by my previous points, so I implore you to read them again.

And for those who don�t see a connection between homosexual marriage and polygamy and incest, let me try one more time. If I say to my kids �which I don�t have right now, but hypothetically� You cannot have a dog, because I don�t want an animal in the house, but a cat is okay�. Then my logic is flawed. How can you say its okay for a man to fall in love with a man, but is not okay for a man to fall in love with his sister, or two woman. Again, if you accept homosexual marriage, then you also accept polygamy and incest. I accept non of the above. As a human being who wishes to be unbiased in this subject, and also prides himself on making intelligent decisions, I cannot say homosexual marriage is good, because I dislike all of the other forms of marriage, except for the one and only extenuating circumstance, which is one man and one woman.

The bottom line, if you wish for gay marriage, then you either accept all or none, or your opinion does not matter. And if you accept incest and polygamy, then your opinion doesn�t really matter anyway. So the only logical choice is none. Polygamy is bad because it discredits women. Incest is bad because it has many problems associated with breeding healthy children. And I am sure everyone knows the health risks associated with homosexuality.

I can honestly say I have looked into the subject with an open mind, but I have yet to hear anything but whining or unsubstantial argument against what I have said. I have no problems being proven wrong �happens many times, which is good because then I learn more�. But I can say such an epiphany has yet to happen with this subject. Sadly, by what I see the only people who approve gay marriage are either gay �biased� or just say, �let people be happy� which is not a logical argument.

And again, for you people that don�t agree that homosexuality is a disorder, then I implore you to learn about some basic psychology. Although PC teachers will not openly go out and say it, the weight against it is far too much to deny. All the anti-disorder arguments are not cohesive premises. I could explain why, but then I would just say the same things I just have. I ask you to re-read my previous arguments, as they truly make sense if you with to pay attention, and not just filter them away thinking that they are homophobic.

I have an open mind, much more open then people I know. But unlike people with an open mind, I can take the information that I get and formulate an opinion that is substantial and logical. There may be some things that are missing from my premise, and if you find any, please tell me, I want to know. But so far, this discussion has yielded 0. I am against hypocritical intolerance �eg. Racism, sexism, etc� but am also against blind, unsubstantial and illogical tolerance �eg. agreeing to racism, and also in this bracket, homosexual marriage�.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Actually, in your example, you're discriminating between races. Much as gay marriage is discrimination between genders.

However it doesn't matter what the condition is you are using to discriminate against because if you support only gay marriage but not the right for any two people to marry for whatever reason they decide then you aren't any different than those wanting to keep the status quo to begin with.

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
[...]
As a human being who wishes to be unbiased in this subject, and also prides himself on making intelligent decisions, I cannot say homosexual marriage is good, because I dislike all of the other forms of marriage, except for the one and only extenuating circumstance, which is one man and one woman.

Where is your open mind here? I do not like something, therefore it is not good.

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
The bottom line, if you wish for gay marriage, then you either accept all or none, or your opinion does not matter. And if you accept incest and polygamy, then your opinion doesn�t really matter anyway. So the only logical choice is none. Polygamy is bad because it discredits women. Incest is bad because it has many problems associated with breeding healthy children. And I am sure everyone knows the health risks associated with homosexuality.

What might those risks be, high blood pressure? If, per chance, you are referring to AIDS, the HIV virus does not discrimitate between sexual orientation, age or race. Get your facts straight.

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
And again, for you people that don�t agree that homosexuality is a disorder, then I implore you to learn about some basic psychology. Although PC teachers will not openly go out and say it, the weight against it is far too much to deny. All the anti-disorder arguments are not cohesive premises. I could explain why, but then I would just say the same things I just have. I ask you to re-read my previous arguments, as they truly make sense if you with to pay attention, and not just filter them away thinking that they are homophobic.

Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, and if you did any research at all, you would have come across this fact by now. What centuryare you writing from, by the way?

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
I have an open mind, much more open then people I know. But unlike people with an open mind, I can take the information that I get and formulate an opinion that is substantial and logical. There may be some things that are missing from my premise, and if you find any, please tell me, I want to know. But so far, this discussion has yielded 0. I am against hypocritical intolerance �eg. Racism, sexism, etc� but am also against blind, unsubstantial and illogical tolerance �eg. agreeing to racism, and also in this bracket, homosexual marriage�.

You open almost every paragraph assuring us that you have an open mind, and then you prove the contrary. How is it that you are so certain to be more open-minded than the other people you know? Why is it that your "fomulated opinion" is "substantial and logical", whereas all the other arguments put forth in this forum can be easily dismissed? It sounds to me like you are trying to rationalize your fear and hate for gays, and your logic leaves much to be desired. Am I calling you homophobic? Most certainly.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
The bottom line, if you wish for gay marriage, then you either accept all or none, or your opinion does not matter. And if you accept incest and polygamy, then your opinion doesn�t really matter anyway.

And why is that? In the same way, I could say that "if you don't accept gay marriage, your opinion doesn't matter anyway". I don't support incest in the meaning the word most often carries, because it implies that somebody's being taken advantage of. That's what I don't support, not the fact that the parties involved happened to be cousins.

Polygamy is bad because it discredits women.

Excuse me? How does polygamy discredit women? Did you ever stop to think that the definition of polygamy is not one man married to several women? It's one person married to several persons. The polygamist might just as well be a woman.

And even if it is the man, if the women that are married to him are quite clear on what they're doing and both benefit from their marriage(s) the way they want to and were intended to, how does it discredit them?

Incest is bad because it has many problems associated with breeding healthy children.

It is true that there is a risk of close relatives having children with problems, mental or physical. But as far as I know, this is normally not manifested until after the chain of in-breeding has taken place. It is very rarely manifested if two siblings have children with each other, unless their parents and grandparents were also the result of in-breeding. And the chances are very slim that close relatives should fall in love and choose to marry several generations in a row, in the same family.

And I am sure everyone knows the health risks associated with homosexuality.

No, actually, I'm quite positive they don't, please enlighten us! As far as I know, there are no health risks that are only associated with homosexuality. As GRAFF already said, if you're talking about AIDS, that's not a "health risk associated with homosexuality". In fact, I'm quite sure that if you took the number of people suffering from AIDS, the majority of them would be heterosexuals, and would have contracted the disease through heterosexual sex.

...or just say, �let people be happy� which is not a logical argument.

Why is that not a logical argument? Do people not deserve to be happy, provided they're not hurting other people or making other people unhappy in the process?

And again, for you people that don�t agree that homosexuality is a disorder, then I implore you to learn about some basic psychology. Although PC teachers will not openly go out and say it, the weight against it is far too much to deny.

As I'm sure you're aware, although it has not yet been ascertained with 100% certainty (and might never be), most experts lean towards the idea that homosexuality is more physically based than psychologically. At least that's what I've always been told.

I ask you to re-read my previous arguments, as they truly make sense if you with to pay attention, and not just filter them away thinking that they are homophobic.

I can honestly say that I've read your posts with an open mind and haven't filtered them away as homophobic. But I cannot for the life of me say that I think they make sense.

I have an open mind, much more open then people I know. But unlike people with an open mind, I can take the information that I get and formulate an opinion that is substantial and logical.

Sorry, these two sentences don't make sense to me... you have an open mind, but unlike people with an open mind, you can form a logical opinion? Huh?

I am against hypocritical intolerance �eg. Racism, sexism, etc� but am also against blind, unsubstantial and illogical tolerance �eg. agreeing to racism, and also in this bracket, homosexual marriage�.

Agreeing to racism is tolerance? I would think it racist.

Of course I'm not into blind, unsubstantial and illogical tolerance - that would be anarchy. But in the case of gay marriage (and, in my opinion, also polygamy), I don't believe it is blind, unsubstantial and illogical tolerance. I believe it's tolerance where tolerance is due.


P.S.: Why do you use "quotation marks" as parentheses?

[Mr. Bob]

GRAFF:

Actually I assure that I have an open mind in every paragraph, because so far the answers that I have received (including yours) show that this is necessary, however for you I would have to repeat it every sentence. I can say that you are the one with a closed mind.

And when it comes to what century I am writing in, it is today, I can assure you. You really need to learn what a disorder is, and perhaps what psychology is. You seem like a person who beleives in fire breathing dragons and other such nonsence.

Having an open mind does not mean acceptance, it means honestly thinking into something. You do not have an open mind. You just blindly agree, and have added nothing but banter to this conversation.

P.S. Ois�n, thanks for the note on quotes. Not exaclty sure when I got into it. I guess I need to pay more attention to my typing.

[Mr. Bob]

Ois�n and others:

It seems for the most part, we are just going around and around in a circle. Either you take my opinions and flush them down the toilet, or I do not quite understand yours. Indeed, as I said earlier, I can be wrong, but I really do not think I am.

Indeed, if I am right, then it can me my fault because I have failed to express my opinions properly. Then again you could just be so adamant about gay marriage that you just do not want to hear anything against it. Overall I am not sure, however I can say that I have wanted to find out what is right, and every time I look at this problem it comes out the same way.

Although I see either way we are not going to change each others minds, I thank you for your input. Maybe it may make sense at some other time. Hopefully you at least think about what I have said, as I have and will do the same for your quotes.

I also hope that no one thinks that because I am the only one here that does not agree to homosexual marriage, that I must be wrong. Indeed, this is an argument that everyone here can agree is wrong.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Although I see either way we are not going to change each others minds, I thank you for your input. Maybe it may make sense at some other time. Hopefully you at least think about what I have said, as I have and will do the same for your quotes.

Ditto, and thank you too.

I also hope that no one thinks that because I am the only one here that does not agree to homosexual marriage, that I must be wrong.

Not the only one...

Indeed, this is an argument that everyone here can agree is wrong.

Indeed - albeit for opposite reasons...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
I also hope that no one thinks that because I am the only one here that does not agree to homosexual marriage, that I must be wrong. Indeed, this is an argument that everyone here can agree is wrong.

Your not the only one. Gay marriages/ civil unions, etc are wrong.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by netgear:
Recognition doesn't make it legal.

Of course it doesn't. But if, under Turias' proposition, the government recognizes all unions, hetero or homo, as civil unions rather than marriage, then marriage is no longer a legal definition. If, then, some churches begin to recognize homosexual marriages, they will be equal to the heterosexual marriages recognized by other churches. Christians aren't going to be terribly happy about that.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Of course it doesn't. But if, under Turias' proposition, the government recognizes all unions, hetero or homo, as civil unions rather than marriage, then marriage is no longer a legal definition. If, then, some churches begin to recognize homosexual marriages, they will be equal to the heterosexual marriages recognized by other churches. Christians aren't going to be terribly happy about that.

What's the difference what you call it? Whether a government recognizes a marriage or a civil union doesn't matter.

Did anyone give consideration as to whether or not a foreign government would recognize a gay marriage or union? What good would a gay marriage do if it were not valid outside the country one had it legalized in?

[Turias]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If, then, some churches begin to recognize homosexual marriages, they will be equal to the heterosexual marriages recognized by other churches.

Actually, I was thinking that a marriage in one religion would mean absolutely nothing in any other religion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Turias:
Actually, I was thinking that a marriage in one religion would mean absolutely nothing in any other religion.

I agree. However, I think there are many people who would take exception to the word "marriage" applied to any homosexual union, regardless of which religion is applying it.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I agree. However, I think there are many people who would take exception to the word "marriage" applied to any homosexual union, regardless of which religion is applying it.

Of course, but there is nothing the state can do about that. Those people would have to take it up with that religion.

Good luck...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
What's the difference what you call it? Whether a government recognizes a marriage or a civil union doesn't matter.

Did anyone give consideration as to whether or not a foreign government would recognize a gay marriage or union? What good would a gay marriage do if it were not valid outside the country one had it legalized in?

Marriages are never guaranteed to be portable. They aren't even always portable across states of the US. If a couple get married at the minimum age in one state and it is below the minimum age in another state, and then they move to that second state, their marriage will not be recognized. This does happen as the minimum age does vary. link

Equally, some countries allow multiple wives. They would not be considered married if they moved to the US. But what good is such a marriage if you can't guarantee that it will be recognized? It's perfectly good where it is recognized.

And in the state marriage example where the marriage would be legal in one state, but not the other, if the marriage is recognized in the state of residency, then the federal government would recognize it.

[macvillage.net]

There are many countries in which there are two separate entities. Civil Unions (state) and "marriage" (religious).

Some time ago, the US moved towards that... but since regressed back. It wasn't always a "Marriage License"... it was merely a tax form. The whole Marriage thing changed in the 40's and 50's. From what I've read, the motivation was interracial marriage prevention. Separation from Church and state would allow a couple to be married without government concent... but by making it 1... the state had some say.


I do wonder why the US can't go back to just making "civil union" a simple form... Already all you need are a few witnesses. They can do them in under 15 minutes in most cities. Why not just skip the actual "event" and just have signing of documents? Just like closing for a house or some other signifigant legal situation.

Marriage always was a religious term until modern times. There was a social distinction prior in the few places on earth where state sanctioned religion wasn't required (remember most of Europe required a certain faith for most of history, though the extent of it's enforcement varried).

All it is for the state is a document stating they are a joined couple for tax purposes, and certian legal privilages. THAT's ALL.

It's up to a church/community to decide the rest.


Of course if you want a justice of the peace to perform and make it a big deal... why not. Could make some serious income for a city. Just like Churches make quite a bit over the "mandatory donations" as they now call them.


All the state needs to know is for tax and legal purposes.

If a church wants to marry homosexual couples, they should be allowed to. If they decide not to, separation of church and state still covers them, just like they don't "require" churches to marry different religions, races, or on the basis of any other protected class category (provided both couples are legally able to consent).


But there should be some separation. For example, the church shouldn't process legal forms. It's a separate entity. That's the other half of separation. It means both sides keep their distance. A church could of course require a couple first get legal documentation of the marriage, then perform the cerimony (if they want to verify that they do legally aknowledge their relationship for whateve reason).


Marriage is nothing more than a legal term in the eyes of the law. Just like "partnership", or "corporation". Just a term. Why not keep the separation of church and state that has protected our religions and our freedoms for 200 years?


What's next? Do I need to baptize a child to get them a birth certificate and Social Security number? Of course not. They are separate. Those documents belong to the state and are issued for legal purposes. And the baptism is for the church. Many churches do require that I would show them the birth certificate though. Just to prove identity.


Separation of Church and state has protected most faiths at one point or another. All faiths have at one point been protected under this clause broad clause. But this clause also protects our government from becoming a vehicle of these many faiths. Only through neutrality can it continue to protect everyone. What's next? Can we prohibit those who don't believe in Jesus because it "offends strict Christians", "It goes against morality", "harms society". I've heard all of these before (seriously, as strange as they are). Reasons why there should be christian only "zones" in Americas? Yes, they are nutjobs... but are they much different than this? They only pick a different (more core) idiology.


Simey: regarding the word "Holy" How about "Holy Sh!t"? That's not relgious, but used quite a bit. Swiss cheese is holy . Ok, I'll cut it out (and make it holy).

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Marriages are never guaranteed to be portable. They aren't even always portable across states of the US. If a couple get married at the minimum age in one state and it is below the minimum age in another state, and then they move to that second state, their marriage will not be recognized. This does happen as the minimum age does vary. link

Equally, some countries allow multiple wives. They would not be considered married if they moved to the US. But what good is such a marriage if you can't guarantee that it will be recognized? It's perfectly good where it is recognized.

And in the state marriage example where the marriage would be legal in one state, but not the other, if the marriage is recognized in the state of residency, then the federal government would recognize it.

The federal government has no business recognizing any marriages.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by netgear:
The federal government has no business recognizing any marriages.

We've disagreed quite a bit over these threads.... but I agree.

The federal government *should* be recognizing civil unions... but they should be just that. Legal documentation for legal purposes. Taxes, medical issues, insurance, family rights, etc.

As far as what a religion wants to define marriage as... that's up to the religion, provided it doesn't move into human rights violations (child brides, slavery, rape etc.). Must be legally of age, and consent to the practice. Other than that... it's up to a church. If a church wants to define marriage as a spiritual union between a man and his dog... go for it.


But the law recognizes legal adults (18+) who concent to be legally bound by the terms of a civil union.


Note: This would also push make all US civil unions valid in 50 states, and in more countries than just a few. And would help those from outside the country, to imediately gain rights as a couple. Since many immigrants, depsite being married in their home country, are not recognized here... hence there's a signifigant legal disadvantage should they need those rights (could be as simple as a hospital visit). Some countries in protest to this practice don't recognize US marriages, hence if you were to get sick, your spouse may not be able to visit you, or speak on your behalf in that countries hopistal... something you should be aware of before you visit that country. As creepy as it is... it does happen. Should really be a transition period. If you legally enter (or visit), your granted the same civil union rights, but if you enter for long term, and employment, must register within, say 90 days.


Religions should do what they feel is right. BUT. They shouldn't have the right to tell the state how to perform. The state should be neutral and protecting the rights of all. From the religous, to the non-religous, and those in between.

[netgear]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
We've disagreed quite a bit over these threads.... but I agree.

The federal government *should* be recognizing civil unions... but they should be just that. Legal documentation for legal purposes. Taxes, medical issues, insurance, family rights, etc.

No, the federal government has no business recognizing any such unions between two non-related people. That is solely the realm of local or state government.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by netgear:
No, the federal government has no business recognizing any such unions between two non-related people. That is solely the realm of local or state government.

Federal would mean it carries state to state (very important).

Would be the most logical sequence for the state to actually organize/implement, but a federal law outlining it all.

That way, when you move, your rights don't change. Just like we don't let states decide on religon, and how to treat religion. Our federal constitution triumphs and says clearly there's a separation. Christians in Idaho have the same freedoms as Florida.


It's quite pathetic that any state can currently deny another states issued marriage. Especially since you pay Federal taxes. And congress decides much of the laws related to married individuals.

A state has the right to guide itself, but it can only do so within the limitations established by federal law.

To prevent this from coming up, yes I am for legally defining on a national level what the drinking, driving age is. It should have been done 20 years ago. Because what do people do? Just cross state lines, and it causes tons of problems. People move to their relatives in another state with a driving age a little lower, and declare that their home for a year or two (on paper), and for insurance purposes as well quite often. They still drive all over, but take advantage of another state... and cause quite some problems for neighboring states. A big debate raised a few years is blood alcohol level. I get in the car in a state that I'm not legally drunk, and get in an accident, kill someone and am found to be drunk in that state... is the bartender liable (as many states hold those who serve alcohol liable) for this? It's been disputed quite a bit over the years. How did the bartender know I was going across state lines? I wasn't even drunk in his state. But he was close to the border. Long arm statute? It gets messy.

It's a bit more of an abstract second example, but shows what a mess things like this can become. When they apply to multiple states, they need to be federal.

Things like jobs stay in the state, hence they are state laws. Employment, speed limit, etc. Building codes, health codes. They are all contained.

In a sense, this could even be linked to the commerce clause.

[netgear]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Federal would mean it carries state to state (very important).

Would be the most logical sequence for the state to actually organize/implement, but a federal law outlining it all.

That way, when you move, your rights don't change. Just like we don't let states decide on religon, and how to treat religion. Our federal constitution triumphs and says clearly there's a separation. Christians in Idaho have the same freedoms as Florida.

No, the federal government should not have anything to do with relations between people. At all. Period.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
There is a very large difference between wanting to have sex with redheads "which still makes children" and wanting to have sex with the same sex "which does not".

Diversity is good, if it makes children. But having sex with the same sex fails to do so.

If one reduces human relationships to: produce children/do not produce children, then I have no argument with you. But I see no point in doing so. A large percentage of the hetero population doesn't feel like having children either, even though they, like homosexuals, have the biological capacity. Again, I don't see that much is gained by reducing human experience to either/or.

The rest of your points have already been addressed by my previous points, so I implore you to read them again.

I don't think so - you ignored some of them. For example, I made the point that consenting gay adults can enter into legally binding contracts. If civil (as opposed to religious) marriage is essentially a contract, with rights and obligations defined by the state, what's to prevent the state from allowing gays to enter into such a contract? Nothing, other than the fact that some people just don't approve of homosexuality.

Since childless couples, transexuals, Liza Minnelli, what-have-you can enter into such a contract, there's no logical reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to. Therefore, one has to come up with other reasons to prohibit it. If one feels that homosexuality is evil/immoral/pathological/etc., then those would serve as reasons. However, the question remains as to whether they're rational reasons. I don't expect to change your mind on that question but I think it's useful to narrow the question.

And for those who don�t see a connection between homosexual marriage and polygamy and incest, let me try one more time. If I say to my kids �which I don�t have right now, but hypothetically� You cannot have a dog, because I don�t want an animal in the house, but a cat is okay�. Then my logic is flawed. How can you say its okay for a man to fall in love with a man, but is not okay for a man to fall in love with his sister, or two woman. Again, if you accept homosexual marriage, then you also accept polygamy and incest. I accept non of the above. As a human being who wishes to be unbiased in this subject, and also prides himself on making intelligent decisions, I cannot say homosexual marriage is good, because I dislike all of the other forms of marriage, except for the one and only extenuating circumstance, which is one man and one woman.

The bottom line, if you wish for gay marriage, then you either accept all or none, or your opinion does not matter. And if you accept incest and polygamy, then your opinion doesn�t really matter anyway. So the only logical choice is none. Polygamy is bad because it discredits women. Incest is bad because it has many problems associated with breeding healthy children. And I am sure everyone knows the health risks associated with homosexuality.

You've contradicted yourself. You've argued on the one hand that polygamy, incest and gay marriage are "the exact same thing," then gone on to describe the differences between them. As I said last time, they're not "the exact same thing" - they have different characteristics and present different problems.

There are health risks associated with heterosexuality as well. That deosn't prevent the state from sanctioning civil heterosexual marriage.

And again, for you people that don�t agree that homosexuality is a disorder, then I implore you to learn about some basic psychology. Although PC teachers will not openly go out and say it, the weight against it is far too much to deny.

Obviously that depends on which research you adopt.

All the anti-disorder arguments are not cohesive premises. I could explain why, but then I would just say the same things I just have. I ask you to re-read my previous arguments, as they truly make sense if you with to pay attention, and not just filter them away thinking that they are homophobic.

I have an open mind, much more open then people I know. But unlike people with an open mind, I can take the information that I get and formulate an opinion that is substantial and logical. There may be some things that are missing from my premise, and if you find any, please tell me, I want to know. But so far, this discussion has yielded 0. I am against hypocritical intolerance �eg. Racism, sexism, etc� but am also against blind, unsubstantial and illogical tolerance �eg. agreeing to racism, and also in this bracket, homosexual marriage�.

I find it amusing that you think your approach is the only "logical" one. I don't expect to change your mind, but I don't find your thinking to be particularly logical.

It's logical to say "only male-female intercourse produces offspring" (which isn't really true anymore either, since we have artificial insemination, but let's assume). It doesn't logically follow from that that the state cannot sanction civil homosexual marriage. They're two different issues, and B can occur independent of A. We already know this from the fact that childless couples can legally marry, any time, any place, any age.

[simonjames]

An excellent de-rail Mr Bob

the topic was about recognising relationships and not your bigoted opinions and disgusting similies implying being gay is as bad as being a pedophile or that an incestuous relationship has the same credance as a gay one.

back onto topic please and with no more judgements as to the validity of gays and their relationships.