Marriage is a civil right in the US

Divorce also makes a mockery of marriage. So does the common practice of unmarried couples living together and the complete disregard of any requirement to be married before indulging in sex. Marriage is in fact already pretty battered. But gay marriage would do it in for good I think. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So now you object to two people who love each other NOT being married.. Nice one.

ok. ok.why are these two practices legal? what objective harm do they actually have? give me a real-world effect. do it in HOW exactly? would we be forced to stop getting married?

---

which one? such as being recognized by the state as a family unit.(that is actually what the debate is over, i'm not just being a smartass. the state recognition is the bit that allows proper tax filing, insurance coverage, wills, etc.) how, specifically, is it mocking marriage? do you think that gay people are just thumbing their noses at marriage, or what? i meant in the context of getting married in a church. sorry for not being clear.

---

why? you said that they were incapable of normal sex -- which is an ACT. which is funny, because the bible defines it in terms of acts too. evidently you are mistaken. it's not obvious. please provide some logic.

---

See, I really don't get this argument at all.Suppose I marry a nice lass and we settle down together, and have kiddies and spend the rest of our lives together. Why does it make the blindest bit of difference to us who else is getting married, why, and for how long? So Billy and Jim got hitched how does that effect our marriage? So Marty and Sue got divorced how does that effect our marriage?

quote:

---

That is why the same people who argue against the sacredness of marriage and the role it plays in human developement, are 'often' the same people who hope (you know you do) that the terrorists will kick our evil, Christian, imperialist pig butts.

---

What a ridiculous thing to think.It must be very convenient to make up imaginary enemies to rail against, but I am afraid you are, in fact, tilting at windmills.Tell me, which organizations supportive of gay marriage have also professed the desire for the terrorists to win?

quote:

---

The excerpts you quoted are all about race and men, can we substitute gay or women in there?

---

Incorrect.The excerpts were about race and man....as in "mankind", not "males".

Dude, this is a red herring, just like it was the first time you brought it up. You are making up things to be worried about

I have lived with my fiancee for over a year now and *gosh* we have been having sex for many years and I'm getting married next month.It certainly isn't making a mockery of my marriage.In fact, we are much more comfortable with the upcoming marriage because we know that we can live together and get along.It's really a pretty bad joke for someone like you to be commenting on other people's sex lives.

quote:

---

I think I'll leave this thread in your hands.

---

That's too bad, faith.I was really interested in you answers to the unanswered questions I have gathered at message 105 in this thread.

quote:

---

For race and women it worked fine, but for gay I think it’s different because with the way the insurance is now, I’d marry a guy so we’d both have cheaper health insurance.

---

So, could you explain exactly why you would be more likely to marry a man just for the benefits and not a woman?What's the difference if you are just doing it for the benefits?AbE: I am also womdering if you realize that, as long as we still have laws agains bigamy in this country, you marrying a man just to get the benefits would preclude you from marrying anyone else before divorcing.What if your roomate didn't want to get divorced from you and fought it? You would be stuck in a long, protracted divorce and not able to get married "for real".Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This is somewhat contradictory. Either they should have legal rights like those of marriage or they shouldn't. Or do you think there are some legal rights that should be withheld?I still don't understand what you think marriage IS. Take away religion and tradition and you have nothing more than a secular legal contract between two individuals!Marriage is defined as a consensual and contractual relationship that is recognized by secular law. Given that definition, and given that you agree that homosexual relionships should be legally recognized, then one must conclude the you are in favour of gay marriage, not against!This is why I am asking what you mean by marriage? If you mean something based on, say, Christianity then you must remember that marriage is not common to, nor ultimately defined by any one religion or doctrine....P.S. Why do you think homosexuals would have to "disown their families"?Edited by RickJB, : Typos.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

It already happens in my country.We have "Civil Unions" which are exactly equivalent to Marriages, and called gay marriages by everyone. There have been cases where two men who share a business have "married" to gain the legal benefits of asset transfer if one of them dies.

is that a significant reason to not allow gay marriages, though? if a man and a woman owned a business, they could just as easily do the same thing.

---