Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

It differes from state to state. A few that they had pdf's of online that I saw said husband and wife.

On paper or in people's minds?Show me.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

No, that marriage was for people of the same race. I don't think that was explicitly stated, just that people said it was implied. I mean, it did get shot down.Marriage liscenses that I have seen have been explicitly for a husband and a wife, but I didn't see any racial requirements. That's what I wanted to see. Where the law says of the same race. I thought it was just implied and not written in there.

Oh, yeah, I don't agree with those. We can't actively discriminate against gay people. That's the only game I see you play. There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for being straight. There could be a benefit for faking being gay if marriage is changed to include gays as marriage is not already for being gay. Right, and opening up marriage to include same sex ones, will make it all the more easier to have a fake marriage for peronal benefit. I don't think that is a good idea. I'd single out any group of people that wanted to exploit the laws, their sexuality has nothing to do with it.But I forgot that you play that game where things are true because you say them.

That was added to the definition of marraige, correct? It wasn't there to begin with?I don't think we should add anything to marriage to exclude gays, but it is already in there.

We don't have an act that says that gays cannot get married. Marriage is between a husband and a wife by default.

You don't have to be in love to get married. That's your opinion. I think it will be opened wider. I, personally, never considered entering a fake marriage before the whole gay marriage thing came up. Now, it seems like it could be fairly beneficial. I also think it would be easier if it was between a male friend of mine versus a female. Some might, I dunno. But certainly there are people, in general, who do want to exploit the law and opening marriage up to same sexes will make that exploitation easier.

But it was an amendment to an already existing law. What did the law say before it was changed? I'm talking about marriage in the U.S.When did the U.S. start recognizing marriages and what were they recognized as. I don't think they were originally recognized as between members of the same race. That was added in the 1920's and then in the 1960's it got shot down.

Sounds like it doesn't even address the point I made. It might as well have been a Beck review. Straight marriage is redundant, marriage is for straights. The reasons for condemning gay marriage don't apply to regular marriage. But ability isn't the problem. Its if they actually do it. Opening up marriage won't give a higher percentage the ability to get fake marriages, it will just open another avenue for people to actually do it. No, its not eactly the same. Right now I can't marry one of my male friends.

It looks like an addition in the 1920's to me. An unconsitutional amendment to the state law that got shot down like 40 years later. How does that turn into opening up something that isn't unconstitutional? They didn't mention race but they did mention gender. Thats why adding in race is unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. But leaving it the way it is, is not against the 14th amendment. I wasn't the one who brought up the 14th amendment to begin with.I say we should sort them out ourselves too. We could make a new legal agreement that has no restrictions whatsoever and change the laws according to that. But to simply just insert gay into marriage can have adverse effects on the laws that are already revolving around marriage that assume the marriage will be between a man and a women in the first place. Thats one of te major problems I have with gay marriage, is that the laws aroung marriage are not prepared for it. We could just do it and deal with the problems as they come up. Or we could make a new form of marriage and then write those in as they come up, knowing that it might be between two poeple of the same sex.

You keep saying this over and over and i'm wondering when that will make it true.Marriage already exists as striaght. Changing it to include gays is bad, partly, because we can't tell if they're gay. That doesn't have anything to do with marriage before the change. Yeah, Beck's new image IS a lot different than his older one. How so? False. It would be easier for me to enter a fake marriage if same sex marriages were allowed.

And all citezens are allowed to get married. And I already covered that. Saying they can get married is the easy part. I'm talking about all the laws that revolve around marriage, not marriage by itself BUt lets go over it a few more time just for fun, eh?

The ability is there but not a lot of action is taken, IMHO. I think the new avenue will cause more action. More fake marriages, not just the potential for more. And I don't mean the gays entering fake ones, I mean the straights.

The laws I'm refering to can be found here.

Whats wrong with having an opinion? Its my opinion that the whole gay marriage thing is a bad idea. So what? But I wasn't talking about ability. I was talking about exercising those abilities, which, will increase, IMH opinion. We can't know until it happens. But gay people aren't being punished.