Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Assuming you don't purport to revert to some absolute source of 'rights' could you tell me from whence, other than your own country, these human rights are to be derived?If your country says that is what they are you are entitled to object and to try and change them (for your country gives you this right too). But you seem reject the rights your country will give you on the basis of your own subjective notion. Each to their own 'subjective' standard and may the best man (geddit?) win.Sure, why not fight for the rights for a mother to marry her son - or even all her sons? Get it over and done with I say so we can all move on.

Your constitution gives people the right to bear arms (or was that the right to arm bears - I can never remember). Did it define what constitutes arms (I should be allowed pack a nuclear weapon) or where those arms could be born (I should be allowed to carry said weapon anywhere I like)? Probably not. Some further work is required to iron out such wrinkles.Anyway, if your country is able to amend the constitution in a way that is contrary to the constitution then there is little reason to point to the constitution as that which establishes inalienable rights. For rights would be clearly alienable.Mothers marrying sons okay by you DCA?

Who defines basic human rights in this context. And are what constitute basic human right open to interpretation? If not who can comment on them at all. And if open to interpretation how is this interpretation carried out and by whom?

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."You are pointing to this bit of an amendment to your constitution. You uphold this amendment to make your case. Now if the amendment was amended so as to continue to exclude gays from the realm of marriage then so what? Amendments exist presumably to further distinguish points of issue that may arise from time to time. Why would your pointing to this amendment supercede a subsequent amendment in import. Surely it is all simply aimed at giving the country a sense of the direction in which it wants to go.By all means protest. But have not all the right to try to move the country in the directions they think it ought to go?It seems to me that equal protection under the law is happening. The problem for gay relationshiops is that they currently do not fall under the law. They cannot marry therefore have no recourse to a law which governs marriage. They are currently exluded from recourse to this the law and the proposed amendment seeks to underline that fact. Maintenance of the status quo as it were

I dunno Crevo. It seems that a lot of folk are pointing to the 14th amendment to make their case against there being this amendment. Presumably if this amendment is made they will be against it but pro the amendment they feel supports their preferred scenario. It makes a little bit of a mockery out of the argument of "inalienable rights" when that is a moveable, to-be-further-defined, feast.What is the issue is worldviews attempting to mould the direction of the country. All this talk of "human rights" and the like is mere window dressing. By second class citizens you mean no marriage and thus no access to the law which protects and nutures marriage as it currently is defined. The request seems to hinge on re-defining what marriage entails. If we re-define this word should we not considering re-defining all words if they are found to exclude certain members of the population (good, loving law abiding ones at that). Should all be allowed to become doctors so as not to exclude certain people from the many benefits that come with being a doctor. Or can society decide that certain states are worthy of protection from all comers for the better good of all.The country must chose the direction it wants to go in. And rights are that which the country issues as best it can for what it sees to be the greater good all. If some are excluded then that is just the way things work.Its not about rights Crevo. Its about worldviews. The rights are decided upon by the worldview which 'wins' There is nothing inalienable about them. Mothers marrying sons? Its off topic so best no go into it much but Do you see any essential difference between a mother and son who want to get married so as to get the protection of the law and two gay people who want to get married to get protection of the law. In terms of rights..?

Pray tell what business of yours is it if two adults decide they want to hurt each other?

If it is not against the law or the constitution for gay people to get married then whats the problem? Why don't gay couples just go and get married and having done so, enjoy the benefits of the law protecting marriages?There must be a problem somewhere to cause all this aggro. Where does it lie?

Perhaps, if there was made available a universally accepted definition as to what constitutes harm.It is worth noting that at the head of the Declaration and before all the articles which, when combined, attempt to chart a course through a maze of human subjectivity, we find the French deferring somewhat obliquely to this.

Of sexual perversion? To decide on perversion we would first need to establish a standard against which to measure. It could be your standard or it could be the Bibles standard or it could be someone elses standard. Which one should be pick before examining the evidence. And why?

While it is your right to suppose that every position I hold stems from religious conviction alone your position would be improved were you to hold off with the tar and feathers for a moment. I argued before with you regarding drug prohibition vs free for all. If you remember that then you may remember the basis on which I arguedThe notion of marriage has come under relentless attack in recent years. Just as with drug prohibition, problems are manifest in the traditional notion of a man and a woman - til death them did part. Even as recently as my parents generation many couples were partakers of unhappy marriages held together for reasons such as the stigma attached to separation (there was no divorce here then), financial dependance, lack of state 'sympathy' for a womans plight under the reign of a tyrannical husband. etcWhatever about the difficulties then, we are supposed to accept that the direction taken since the attack on marriage got up a head of steam (which includes aspects of a recent debate on a related issue - sexual abstinance) is a better one. I disagree on more pragmatic grounds that religious intolerance.Here we have whole housing estates are built to accomodate teenage to early twenties single mothers on welfare who are no more financially independant than were the tied in unhappy marriage mothers of the past. Its a different kind of cage but a cage nonetheless. It is the fruit of sexualisation of children alright but one aided by the partial demolition of the institution of marriage.The stigma is virtually gone and the generally held notion of marriage being something very special is under attack. Folk marry now on a whim - and knowing they can get out of it easy, do what people tend to when they get things easy. They discard them if the novelty wears off or the shiny paint dulls slighty. We all know that it is in the overcoming of difficulty that strength and maturity and resiliance increase. But if the next generation have this generation as an example then the knowledge of this truism as it pertains to marriage will be somewhat diluted compared to what we learned from our parents. And the generation after that will have even less to go on. Mark my word Omni, it won't be long til we too will be able to eat the candy floss that is drive-by wedding with divorce papers issued before lunchtime tomorrow.Spanner on it if you like. Let gay people who love each other marry today, mothers who love sons tomorrow. The day after that those who love more than one are sure to come knocking. For all can claim similar 'rights' once marriage is open to redefinition.Right, Right - everybody wants rights. Nobody talks about duty. All the talk is of pre-nuptual agreements and the high cost of getting a divorce as if the people entering into the agreement had no duty to see that agreement carried through. Lets not forget who is choosing to get married here. Lets not forget it is a contract that is being signed.There will be problems no matter which system you have. But just as with drug prohibition, marriage between a man and a woman is the way it is NOW. If you want to go spannering on it with some untried and untested notions then you need to show me that the end result will still be an institution respected and protected and enjoying the special privileges assigned to it. For if it is demolished as an institution then I can expect the privileges to be demolished with it. And I see that as passing a reasonable test of harm to society at large and don't see any issue in resisting you or anyone else in your attempts to carry out some untested, grand scale and irreversible social experiment.(Lest some are wont to persist in the notion that I hate gays then let me say here and now that I do not. They are sinners. Just like me. They are no worse or no better than me. Jesus equated murder with anger, adultery with lust. He wasn't building a hierarchy of sin - he was tearing it down. But seeing as all are sipping at the well of "MY rights" I think I'll dip my beak in for a sip too. The right to be deeply doubting of where this will end up.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Lets test them absolutes there Omni. Lemme see?Live Cannibalism: medium sized stadia charging $200 a head (oops). Strictly over 18 and neat dress essential?Fight-to-the-death betting on by webcam or stadia: pick from a buffet: switchblade, quick-draw, Russian Roulette?Necrophelia (with pre-signed permissions - does a corpse have rights? Your damn tootin!)Mega-Sex Orgies. I'm talking Superbowl. (no dogs allowed)You really fought a war for that Omni? I reckon that statment was hyperbole. At least I hope so.(I'm sure all these activities would be biblically prohibited meaning they pass the Religious Oppression Test (ROT)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Er..sis... I spotted a 'fatal' flaw in your argument.Edited by iano, : No reason given.