Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

I don't believe I was trying to put words into your mouth but to point out that same sex marriages are universal, fundemental, and undeniably historic. I apologize if you felt I was putting words into your mouth.It also, was not just Nero, but other Roman Emporer's who had similar same sex marriages or just sexual "liassons" with the same sex.At the moment, the best I can do is offer this evidence: Wikipedia. Which should also offer you references.

That is a bad comparison, it really doesn't apply.
Black people are born that way, it's a fact.We cannot prove the same for homosexuals, it's a choice.Even if I am wrong about that, there is no need for different schools for blacks and whites, they can all function in the same school. Let me rephrase that:
"Different" categories for the unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals are inherently different, but equal.

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?

i know i would.dear admins. this is exactly why we need a private messaging service on this board anyways. my closing thoughts, to keep from wasting the post.the idea that there is no cultural precedent for same sex marriage is preposterous. moreover, arguments for laws from tradition no longer stand with our judiciary. why? because they are inconsistent with a secular, human rights oriented government. the udhr and the laws of other post-industrial democratic states have created a community in which human rights include the right for any legally consenting adult to marry any other legally consenting adult. this is not a slippery slope, as there are no other legally consenting adults. if this does spread into polygamy, so what? that's VERY well established as common practice... even in the bible. fraud is a prosecuted crime and is not a sufficient excuse for denying rights. the government has sufficient interest in regulating marriage, but not in denying rights to groups based on sexual orientation. gay people can work anywhere, live anywhere, go to school anywhere, and adopt children. why can't they marry?the question of who would retain custody if a gay couple divorces is a difficult one, but no more difficult than with a straight couple. it is a question that must, in either case, by law be decided on a case by case basis. the annoying and intolerant question of "who is the mommy" is not a sufficient reason to deny marriage.people who think that the laws of their country should be determined by traditional or religious understanding should find their own country and stop hijacking our intentionally secular constitution.

I didn't accuse you of TRYING to put words into my mouth but of DOING it. I did not SAY what you said is my position and it is not my position. There is NO evidence for this aside from the assertion in the article on the Indians you linked, and I have no idea what authority that carries.The Wikipedia article says nothing whatever about homosexual marriages that I can detect on a quick read. Nobody is disputing that homosexuality has always existed and we know it was particularly practiced in Greece. So what? The subject is MARRIAGE. "Liaisons" are not marriage.You have given no evidence for your claims. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How very odd then that there is such a great abundance of NO evidence for that claim.

But then you would stray off-topic without any hope of correction.We think only of your welfare.Meanwhile, back at the topic: I think the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens, despite its gendered language, said it best more than two hundred years ago: So simple.

Perhaps, if there was made available a universally accepted definition as to what constitutes harm.It is worth noting that at the head of the Declaration and before all the articles which, when combined, attempt to chart a course through a maze of human subjectivity, we find the French deferring somewhat obliquely to this.

Extending a noble expression of principle to ratifying a sexual perversion is probably a new low, though I'm not completely sure. Perhaps it has been bested.

note. france was impecably secular when that was written.also. harm is not defined by having your religious morals offended.

pm is an off thread messaging option. it tends to be on another member's profile as "send this member a message".de tocqueville was ahead of his time.

begging tradition. baseless claim. provide evidence.

What is a peversion to one person is perfectly natural for another.If others don't tell you how to pray, why should they listen to you about how they should make love?

Of sexual perversion? To decide on perversion we would first need to establish a standard against which to measure. It could be your standard or it could be the Bibles standard or it could be someone elses standard. Which one should be pick before examining the evidence. And why?

It is remarkable that two centuries ago the French were able to reconcile a Supreme Being with liberty and equality, something many Americans (and apparently some Irish) have not yet managed to do.A reasonable test of harm, in any case, would eliminate those matters that merely evoke disapproval. Were it otherwise, we would tie each other up in knots of this distaste or that dislike. Besides, what would the priggish do without someone to condemn?Because religious opponents of gay marriage cannot demonstrate any harm to their own estate from it, they seek to redefine the meaning of harm to include the tolerance of unwelcome difference. Perhaps pagan marriages are next on the list?The Bible is not the law of the land, and marriage is not the property of any church. To all religious opponents of liberty I say:Take care of your own life, and leave the living of other lives to those who live them. Feel free to attempt to dissuade others from gay marriage--otherwise, if you don't like homosexual marriage, don't marry one.I have not yet met the person whose own life was so perfect that they could spare much time for improving another's; content yourselves with the belief that your God will mete out any justice required, and then mind your own business: the kingdom of marriage is of this world.Based on the stats on failed hetero marriages, you have much to do at home.