I for one am for same-sex marriage as i AM a gay but i can see the fundies point of view as “the good book” does say same sex marriages are wrong but do you want to know another thing? there is also another part in Leviticus which says same sex SEXUAL couples are wrong! there have been cases of gay priests in CELIBATE loving relationships, are these wrong? yes if these scriptures are actually gods honest to god truth or is it that they were written for the time when people got stoned for every thing that was “morally wrong”, there’s also the fact that some parts of the bible are out of date, as with a few of the ten commandments such as “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God”, you may see this as doing what god says but since god says love is the most important then you caould be considered taking his name in vain.

and there i end my rant, good luck for everyone else!

Should we also legislate sexual acts? If I scratched together several conservative asshats and legislated that people who have had sex out of wedlock should be denied the right to a fair trial in court on the distorted belief that the courts are there by the authority of God and such adultery is sinful, would that be cool with most of the US? Or would you rightfully believe that the actions taken by my supporters and I was a simple disagreement in beliefs to be respected?

Er, wrong. Greece, Rome, and quite a bit of modern Europe are societies which do NOT exclude them.
Furthermore, how do you feel about interracial marriage? A lot of societies STILL frown on that, and have for thousands of years. Yet we allow it, if only since the 1960s.

Will it be Pay-Per-View…?

Anyway, many states have outlawed even that.

stop using your religion as an excuse for your hatred.

Not asking for animals, kids, inanimate objects, or anything of the sort outside of consent laws. Just simply asking that two consenting adults who wish to be married be given the same protections and rights that another pair of consenting adults are allowed.

It is duty as citizens to vote for just laws not their own bigotry. It is the duty of the courts and governments to make sure that just laws are made and put into practice.

To clarify my sentence on civic duty, I will give this example. Gay men invoke my ick response. I find nothing appealing or attractive about men getting down. As a matter of fact, I find it a tad on the revolting side. Just my personal quirk. It does nothing for me. Is that reason to deny them rights if they are desiring what I desire? Should I inhibit their choices, especially choices that do not affect me? Does their desire for buggery mean they are less than I am or deserve less than I am allowed? Does it mean we can’t be friends?

The answer is no. They are tax paying citizens, my spiritual brothers, and people to be judged by their actions the same as me. They can be good neighbors, friends, parents, and I am sure they can be just as good of a spouse as I can be. It is not about my faith. It is not about an ick factor when I see them kiss. It is not about my morals. It is about ethics and fairness.

Let them get married. We have bigger fish to fry and they are in the same damn sinking ship as we are.

Disclaimer: It is not against my morals for gays to be together, have kids, or get married. Gay men and women have just as much right to an orgasm as I do. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Nature has gay animals so the natural law argument is false. Separation of church and state dictates that your bible is not my law so that argument is out. We are not asking for the Religious Right to approve. We are asking them to make the laws fair across the board.

He doesn’t mind if homosexuals have equal rights, as long as those rights don’t include marriage or adoption.

By the way, we’re not asking you to “Change the Definition of Marriage”. Mirriam-Webster already has it down correctly:

Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Taxes =/= equal protection. Apples and Oranges.

My issue is that if you have no stake, why vote against evening the field for another group. That is what bothers me.

I have LOTS in common with straight, infertile couples. NO Sp*rm at home, so we adopted. Should all infertile men be barred from getting hitched, too?

WHY is my relationship LESS loving and “good for society” than yours? You just say that it is so, without base, or fact.

Or is it just the “ick” factor?

Which is it? Honestly and truly. Is it that you cannot fathom a loving, committed relationship between two people when one of them lacks a P*nis? Because as I mentioned in my earlier post, I am grossed out “by these kids today,” who practically have sex on the NYC subway. And all I want to do is hold my partner’s hand in public without the fear of being beaten up.

So the fact that an infertile, or “childless by choice” couple choose to marry deems MORE legal guardianships than me?

Also, thanks to the rest of you for the hugs and support.

Xavier, do you actually bother to read and attempt to comprehend any of the replies to your posts? Or do you post simply to restate the same tired questions that have been repeatedly answered, in a variety of ways??

My relationship is my relationship. It is an intangible thing that can no more be codified than the smell of my favorite meal ( if you knew me, you’d know that food is only slightly lower than family on my love-o-meter). What *can* be codified are the rights that are afforded when two parties enter a legal contract. More accurately, what should not be codified against are those rights.

You still don’t get it, do you? Or do you just not want it? If my relationship doesn’t need to be codified, then neither does yours. Are you advocating the dissolution of all marriage, forever and ever amen? My question to you was, and is, what makes our relationship less worthy of “codification” as you put it? What makes our union undeserving of legal protection, and by extension subject to persecution? Quite frankly, I personally don’t care what the name of the institution is, but separate but equal is *still* inherently unequal.