Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

except the whole stone the fags thing.now, i agree with you. but that is not the majority christian opinion. (majority christian is different than christian majority btw.) no. the definition is not inherently hatered. however, creating such a definition with the specific intent of restricting the rights, freedoms, and happiness of a group of people is hateful.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

you know, the easiest thing to do might be this:
just eliminate the benefits associated with marriage, and then no one, incuding homosexuals, can get the benefit of entering a union.probably wouldn't work, what with all the special interests and the increase of taxes (by elimination of tax-exemptions)

I would agree.. It seems to me that to offer incentives to be married discriminates against "common law" couples.Would you extend this to tax breaks for families with children?

I'm honestly not sure, considering my family benefits from it, as well as from the tax credits.But in keeping with the solution I proposed, I would have to say yes.THe problem is, when you allow tax breaks for one group, you gotta do it for most, if not all groups, which then means that the churches can become tax exempt, but all religious building then need to be tax-exempted for no support of religion to be maintained.Of course, if we did repeal all this stuff, then we might actually be able to better afford our government . . . yeah right.

Ok, I took a gander I wouldn't solve any of those problems by allowing same sex marriage. I'd find a different way, especially since I'm one of those that doesn't want same sex couples to be able to adopt. That won't affect this issue, though, because I'm not for the constitutional amendment that's under discussion, anyway.Either way, the topic I was discussing was whether being for the amendment constitutes hatred. I think we've decided it'll stay at an impasse.

Ok, for the last time, this is a total red herring. No one is trying to redefine marriage. Every marriage is unique and defined by the participants.No one is trying to do ANYTHING to YOUR marriage

Then you'd be creating a separate but equal institution. Whoops, I guess it wouldn't be equal.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

quote:

---

I wouldn't solve any of those problems by allowing same sex marriage.

---

Why do you care who the government says can get married?

quote:

---

I'd find a different way, especially since I'm one of those that doesn't want same sex couples to be able to adopt.

---

Why not?

No, marriage is not an individual thing, it's a cultural thing, it's something the whole culture participates in in a sense. If it didn't there would be no need for marriage at all because it is to define a couple within the culture. This is not about individual marriages. This isn't about YOUR marriage or anybody's marriage. This is about the meaning of a cultural institution.

The meaning of a cultural institution is determined by the culture. A constitutional amendment will be about as effective as King Canute trying to hold back the tide.

Effective at what?Do you really think that those who are in favor of gay marriage outnumber those who aren't?

"Outnumber" misses the point. They are more connected to the culture, and have been more effective in grass root organization to change the culture.

Me too, in july 8th! Second time over for me.

Marriage exists to provide a financial and legal linkage between partners. It's a legal contract that provides certain rights and certain responsibilities.In any case what does any of this rambling have to do with gay marriage and/or civil unions? How will it affect how existing married couples are "defined within the culture"? The answer - it won't AT ALL. Of course since "defined within the culture" is a soft meaningless statement this doesn't matter anyways. Again, what effect does this have on heterosexual marriage? Oh yeah, none. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate any effect this would have on existing or future heterosexual marriages.

Holy shit. I am also getting married on july 8th.Crazy coincidence