Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

The government should never have been in the marriage business anyways. What business of theirs is it who I have personal relationships with?We should either eliminate all legal references to marriage (call them civil unions) or get the govt. out of the marriage business altogether.Marriage should be a purely personal and/or religious exercise.Civil Unions should be the only thing the law deals with.

I think the word marriage is a very loaded term... that causes a lot of this conflict. Marriage is one of those things that the govt. should probably have stayed out of.

I think this is a red herring (at least the roomate issue). Getting married isn't a one way thing. If you let someone marry you to get on your health insurance they could end up taking half of your possessions. The legal ramifications of marriage are going to keep most people from doing this type of thing.It's interesting you bring up health care. I find it oh so amusing that the same people who want to deny gay people marriages also are the people against universal health care. If we had universal health care this issue would probably go away for the most part. The other issues of course are guardianship of children, power of attorney and other things along those lines.From a practical standpoint, it benefits every single citizen everytime we get one more person health insurance. That alone should be enough to show the merits of gay marriages from a practical point of view.I personally think polygamy is fine too as long as all parties are consenting adults (heck, the bible says it's ok).Incest is a grey area because we have mountains of evidence that children born of incestual relationships are often deformed.Any church should be free to deny marriage to anyone it wants... but the govt. has to provide rights for all citizens equally.I'm not sure this amendment would even be valid unless the equal protection clause were removed (of course the equal protection clause is rarely enforced these days, but that's another issue).heck, to the christians.. GOD made gay people, why do you discrminate against god's creation?

I'm not going to address all the sniping between everyone, but the issue of equal protection under the law is very valid.You simply can't deny legal rights to some citizens because you don't like their lifestyle. This is clearly outlined in the equal protection clause.Now.... we don't have to call it marriage (which like I said before causes a lot of problems)... but we are denying people rights granted to others.I think it's funny that anyone even cares about this issue.It has ZERO effect on anyone outside of gay people (well, it might slightly decrease the cost of health care for everyone since more people would have health insurance).This "attack" on marriage is simply contrived and doesn't actually exist.Marriage is a very personal thing. No one else's marriage has ANYTHING to do with mine (well, my impending marriage at least... getting hitched in july).It's so funny how people get all worked up over nothing.

So you believe that those who can't afford health insurance deserve to die? (this is not a strawman, this is what being against some sort of universal health care system really means).If someone gets sick right after they get laid off I guess it's ok that they then have to declare bankruptcy and have their lives (and their children's lives) destroyed due to bad luck.I'm sure you have your reasons... but you should really look at how much we spend on defense and reconsider your position on health care for all.It is very amusing. Why in the world would anyone be against providing health care to everyone? Heck, that's one of the main reasons I support gay civil unions or whatever. These people have kids and raise families... I certainly want them to have health care.Note: When I say universal health care I am NOT saying government run health care. It could certainly still be administered through private companies.ABE: Yes, this actually is off-topic. I'm sorry Catholic, you were right. I'll start a new threadEdited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

I didn't even notice this.... you really need to do some reading.I supposed you are unaware that the biggest reason health care is so expensive is because of uninsured people?Did you also know that over 50% of bankruptcies are due to unforseen healthcare costs?I don't think this is that off-topic. Health care is the main driving force behind gay marriage and why people need it.ABE: Again, apologies... This is off-topic even though I said it wasn't just above.Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

I hear what you are saying... but I don't think there are enough gay people around to cause any noticable cost increase.There is little difference between married filing jointly and separately for the vast majority of people

This is a red herring. A man and a woman can already do all these things today. Yet we don't see "bogus" marriages as much of a problem except when it comes to immmigration (which is going to remain a problem either way)

Actually what the constituion actually says is that your right to practice your relgiion is protected. It also says that I have the right to not have religious beliefs forced on me.(I suggest to anyone interested to read what Jefferson, you know the guy who wrote the constituion has to say on the subject)In any case, this issue has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion (I would agree with Faith on that one) and everything to do with the equal protection clause.The govt. should have never gotten into the marriage business.

You mean like how people who are offended by ignorant bigots are forced to support their cult churches through property tax exemptions?What does this have to do with your idea of marriage? No one is saying you have to accept gay marriages on a personal or religious level. This is only concerned with extending legal rights to all citizens.

It's actually not if it's consensual.S&M comes to mind.

BUT, those heterosexual people can choose to marry if they would like.And the rights are designed for couples, which obviously doesn't apply to a single person.I would agree that screaming and talking about hate is counter productive.This is really much ado about nothing if you ask me.Gay marriage wouldn't change anyone's life in the slightest unless they were a gay person who wanted to marry

Truthlover, you nailed it....This is a definite POTM

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

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.