Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Iano, you'd save everyone a lot of time, and take up less space in these threads if you simply made your point rather than pursueing these teacher-student style Q&A.
the source for morals could be manyfold, not, as i guess you are trying to suggest, merely from the bible. Doesn't it seem sad that the 'default' starting position is one where people, good, loving, produtive. law abiding people are treated as second class citizens? A dissappointingly idiotic response from you. Uncharacteristic.

Not sure that has anything to do with Same sex marriages.ABE{ Would it be ok to marry my roommate if she was female? it seems so. So is you problem with marriages of convenience or same sex unions?}Edited by Creavolution, : added point

and what is motivating this pro-amendment stance? Does the motivation of a pro amendment position have anything to do with the people who will really be affected by this? (i.e. those who wish to marry). I feel that is the issue. I have a friend in the UK getting married to his partner this summer. Why should it be that they would not see the same financial benefits (for instance) from devoting their lives to each other than any other couple? If one of them should Die, is it not fair that the other should be entitled to be named 'spouse' for this like pension payments etc?The problem is that the while anti amendment stance seeks to INCLUDE all preferred scenarios (i.e you can still have your hetero marriage, you can live by your beliefs in this regard), the Pro amendment stance seeks to EXCLUDE those who do not agree. I would agree. It should not be restricted to a hetero relationship. certainly.. If the word "doctor" was defined as: then yes.. it should be changed, as the sexuality of the person has no bearing on their ability to fulfil the responsibilities of the position. A bit pointless really as a mother and son will already be considered a 'family' for most purposes.But essentially I'm not sure I agree with any kind of tax/healthcare/pension breaks for different people (I'm not an economist so maybe there are other reasons for this.
But for instance. If I live with my partner (male or female) and we are in a loving relationship, but do not marry.
Why should We be treated any different to my neighbours who are in a relationship but are married?

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?

what has this got to do with gay marriage? this could just as equally happen with a straight couple.

what? isn't the question simply 'who gets custody?' (answer: the most stable suitable partner)
or is it your view that the mother should always get custody of children in such a situation? regardless of her suitability?Edited by Creavolution, : forgot to put in quote..

I see nothing whatsoever to back up that assertion other than your own suspicion.Why on earth would I want to be leaglly married to my room mate? that's ridiculous, the cons far outweigh the pros,
what if we fell out would he get half my possesions?
what If I began seeing a girl? could he divorce me for adultery and take all my possessions?"marriages of convenience" occur in with hetero couples, there is no reason whatsoever to think it would be any more or less likely with same sex couples.

so.. I don't see the problem then. you have not explained why it's necessary that someone "Be the mother" in a child custody case.

But you haven't done this.
why does a custody case for a child imply there needs to be different rules, the child will go with the most suitable parent/guardian regardless of sex/sexuality

you'd love seattle...sorry OT... carry on...

absolute crap. can you back this up in the slightest? oh.. I see you can't. consider that point ignored/invalid what differences should there be?
no public displays of affection?
no children at the wedding?
separate rooms at hotels?