There are times when a man and woman get married but they dont want to have kids. So, the state shouldn't condone that union either?
go canada. rock:

[quote=Madmartagen]you mean civil unions? kinda like black classrooms, restrooms and drinking fountains isnt it? seperate but equal has already been deemed unconstitutional by the supreme courtin Brown vs Board of Education[/quote:b5d4a]

Seperate but equal doesnt apply here.

"Marraige" is a government program - but that doesnt mean a person cant get married. Anyone can go into a church and get married and be joined in union under God, Yahweh, Splork The Lizard King or whoever - but according to FEDERAL GUIDELINES such a union wont be recognized by the program called MARRAIGE. States are free to create their own State Marraige Programs though, and many do.

Seperate but equal created two lines of access to government services - Marraige does not do so, and should not do so. Anyone can get their marraige recognized by the feds - so long as you meet the pre-reqs.

well whatever--I hope it never happens in GA or AL

that being said I do think it should be up to state governments to decide and not the Fd. government.

Splork The Lizard King

Let them do what they want rolleyes:

Lets all ignore negative; cleary he has no valid arguement. Its all about taxation; therefor the federal gov't will HAVE to be involved. Yes, they can tax them through marriage only on a state level, but we all know that if they only do that then everyone can take advantage of this and avoid certain federal taxation if they decided to be gay. I know i would cool:

whoopie?

Governments shouldn't be able to decide the validity of a marriage or union between two people. Thats basically private business and who wants their government to tell them who has a right to get married and who doesn't? oOo:

The more our government doens't go by religious ideals the better.

I don't care about the word marriage...i think it should mean a union between any two humans basically.

So, people that can't have children are to be divorced immediately? "Hey, guys, I'm sorry your first baby died and as a result you can't have kids - But now you gotta go on and get a divorce, you're not servicing us in anyway now....."

....and those that decide they don't want to bring children into the world are refused the right of marriage? LOL.

Nice logic, mate.

Let gay people do what they want. It's just nosy-neighbour syndrome if you have a problem with it. It's not effecting you in the slightest, apart from the fact that you may have to see a union taking place once, maybe twice in your life. If that.

I've never understood why people are so against it. The only reply I've gotten, when asked, is that it will "change what my idea of marriage is" or some bullshit like that.

Divorces did that years ago.

[quote="TGB!":859ea][quote=Madmartagen]you mean civil unions? kinda like black classrooms, restrooms and drinking fountains isnt it? seperate but equal has already been deemed unconstitutional by the supreme courtin Brown vs Board of Education[/quote:859ea]

Seperate but equal doesnt apply here.

"Marraige" is a government program - but that doesnt mean a person cant get married. Anyone can go into a church and get married and be joined in union under God, Yahweh, Splork The Lizard King or whoever - but according to FEDERAL GUIDELINES such a union wont be recognized by the program called MARRAIGE. States are free to create their own State Marraige Programs though, and many do.

Seperate but equal created two lines of access to government services - Marraige does not do so, and should not do so. Anyone can get their marraige recognized by the feds - so long as you meet the pre-reqs. [/quote:859ea]

states are allowed to create their own marriage programs but the law says that the union must be recognized by all of the other states.. there is no pre requisite that says marriage is only defined as between a man and woman. marriage is every citizens right, and it is unconstitutional to deny a citizen and tax payer the right to such a public right. it is also discriminate to create an alternative form of marriage (civil union) for homosexuals becuase it is seperate from the common public marriage and is supposed to be considered just as good (equal). hence, imo, seperate but equal has been clearly established.

First off I never said that a couple without children had to get a divorce. It doesn't bother me one bit if two men or two women want to live together, and I don't even care about what they do in the privicy of thier home. Govenments do have an obligation to regulate marriages. Otherwise you end up with brothers marrying thier sisters, or cousins marrying, you know like backwoods Arkansas of any royal family. Bad mojo.

[quote:dadc2]Otherwise you end up with brothers marrying thier sisters, or cousins marrying, you know like backwoods Arkansas of any royal family.[/quote:dadc2]

You'll notice that this is NEVER brought up - at least in public debates regarding the issue. Because if one were to "take government out of 'marraige'" - then it wouldnt just mean any ADULT could 'marry' - it would mean ANYONE could marry regardless of age or familial relationship.

But hey - society found a solution for slavery (as if it wasnt evident to them at the time) - perhaps those clamoring for marraige rights can find a solution for that problem as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/domes ... index.html

This is good.

Don't knock gay sex until you've tried it rock:

I didn't knock gay sex. If you find some guys hairy ass a turn-on I could care less. I don't think it is in the governments best interest to sanction such behavior.