Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Okay, I'll bite. Who or what, exactly, is being made the subject of hatred by those who promote gay marriage, through the act of promoting gay marriage?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Since we are talking about the laws of said country, there is no reason to need another source.The country guarantees equal rights for all citizens. It is not living up to this promise.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

You have effectively pointed out the vagueness of the second amendment. Bravo.Now try the fourteenth amendment... the one relevant to this discussion. I didn't point to it as such, but thanks for playing. I said the law guarantees equality. And you are right... if the constitution changes, that will no longer be the case.And, of course, if little green aliens come down from the sky and turn us all into slaves, we won't have any rights then, either! Man, any number of things could happen! But as it stands, the law continues to guarantee equal rights. So I fail to see your point. It'd ick me out, but as long as it's all consensual, it's no skin off my nose.My turn: what'd you think of the Beck album that came out last year? I found it pretty disappointing, myself.Irrelevant, non-sequitur questions are fun!

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Then the fourteenth amendment would be, for all intents and purposes irrelevant.You seem to be thinking that my case is, "THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS SACRED AND UNTOUCHABLE!" It's not. My case is, "the fourteenth amendment is important. Don't fuck with it." I'm a little astonished that I have to explain this, but if you exclude a subset of the population from protection under the law, they are not receiving equal protection under the law.

Iano, until this post that I am typing right now, you have been the only person on this thread who has used the word "inalienable".Please actually listen to what people are saying to you.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Please explain how your idea of marriage will be trashed if gay people also get married. As far as I can see, your marriage, and your idea of marriage will be exactly the same, whether or not two guys down the street are married as well.While we're at it, please explain how you are being forced to support homosexuality. If two people of the same sex are allowed to get married, you don't have to support it.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Oh. Then your point's irrelevant.At best, if they are motivated by hate, but expressing it through something entirely unhateful, then they're doing a real crap job at hating. This is, essentially, the same saying that the act of reserving a water fountain for white people does not constitute hatred towards those who cannot use the water fountain. And I call bullshit on it.While a person may not be frothing at the mouth and screaming at whoever tries to use that water fountain, (although this thread alone would indicate that they often do,) the act of excluding somoene puts them in a position of inferiority and dehumanization. It is exercising power and degredation over another person for no other reason than to be a douchebag.If that's not a hateful action, I have no clue what is. That's not what you said originally. You said there were those on both sides who are motivated by hate.Why would someone's hatred motivate them to promote gay marriage?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

And they can have their own, lovely, blacks-only water fountain just two feet away. Hurray, they can drink!Of course, even that, under these terms, is being generous. After all, while everyone has to drink, nobody has to drink from a public water fountain. Yes, we can create a delightful separate, yet equal system.See above, re: water fountains. Others can. They can't.If that doesn't add up to discrimination in your eyes, I think we're at an impasse. Yes, you said that already. And while I agree that hatred can be (and often is) a motivation for name-calling, I still don't get how it would be a motivation for promoting gay marriage.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Well no, it's also a standard of legal treatment. Jar posted a fairly complete list of everything marriage entails further up the thread, if you'd care to take a gander. Some, maybe many, of those who promote it are also motivated by hate.You may not have meant it how it came off, but you did say it. Well, good thing you're around to tell them what really matters to them.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Then you'd be creating a separate but equal institution. Whoops, I guess it wouldn't be equal.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I never stop being astonished when someone says, with a straight face, "I want them to be equal... just separate."Didn't we, as a nation, call total bullshit on that idea fifty-two years ago, when we acknowledged that separate is inherently unequal?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

It's downright horrifying to hear someone talk about the inequality of different kinds of people.Let's be clear here... your statement above does not say that their marriages are not equal to a heterosexual marriage. It says that homosexual people can not be equated with heterosexual people. Those are your words.If anyone really doesn't know what the term bigot means, the above is a textbook-perfect example.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

"Equate people" were indeed your words, Faith. These are the words to which I was referring. Gotta call bullshit, Faith. Your statement had already identified homosexuals as "people who do not possess the physical qualifications for marriage."I find it very hard to believe that all you really meant to say was "people who do not possess the physical qualifications for marriage are not equal as far as qualifications for marriage goes." But if that's the line to which you'd like to backpedal, feel free.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I just felt the need to highlight that statement. Everyone can read it how they like. Yawn. See previous post. Well, partly because you're doing a piss-poor job of establishing that gay people are, in fact, unqualified for marriage. And partly because I have never once argued that we need gay marriage recognized as a social institution. The social institution of gay marriage already exists. Two people of the same sex routinely get up in front of their loved ones, promise to spend their lives together, and serve some champagne. Whether you choose to recognize it is entirely your concern; whether society recognizes it is society's concern.I think you should. I have my theories why you don't. Statements like "unequal as PEOPLE is exactly what I meant" suggest I'm probably right. But, as I say, it's your concern.However, whether society chooses to throw rice at a homosexual's wedding or not doesn't change the fact that the government is treating homosexuals unequally by granting certain rights to heterosexuals who get married, and not to homosexuals.Edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], : corrected bad tags

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

All depends on how you choose to define "2 different things", doesn't it? Techincally speaking, black people and white people can be called "2 different things." So can heterosexuals and homosexuals.In either case, it's a bullshit distinction, and boils down to unequal treatment of two groups of the same thing... people. Please explain how outlawing homosexual marriage will make us all equal. Neither. There are two fathers. The one who can offer the child a better quality of life gets custody.You already received an answer to this question, of course. So I'm not sure why you're re-asking it.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird