Two adult, competant people who love each other should have the right to enjoy the same legal benefits.

If you use that kind of logic, what reason is there for ANYTHING? What reason is there for "straight" marriage? What reason is there for not being allowed to kill people? What reason is there that we're allowed to vote?

You cannot give any logical support for your argument or any reason beyond "just because", nor can you support your position against any counterarguments.

So Jews aren't really married? Nevermind that they invented the prenup...

You are being completely absurd. The fact that two people are in love entitles them to some right? Your argument is this: that because two straight people can enter into a relationship which by definition involves 2 people of the opposite sex, two people who do not fit the prerequisite to enter the relationship should be allowed to. This is like a stupid "No Girls Allowed is wrong" argument. You consistantly say logic and ration are on your side, but they simply are not. Now, if you simply desire some sort of civil union policy which would grant the "rights" to homosexual couples, that may be more understandable. However, even without such a policy, gay couples can create most of these rights for themselves. Worried about what happens to your partner if something happens to you? DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES AND DRAFT A WILL. Worried about your life insurance benefits? YOU CAN NAME ANYONE AS A BENEFACTOR. This is much less about the "rights" gays lose, and much more about pushing their way into an institution which is sacred to many who happen to think homosexuality is wrong.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that people twist my words.

Where did I say that only Christians can get married?? I said Christ instituted marriage (according to the Christian church) between a man and a woman. I DID NOT say Christ instituted marriage between a Christian and a Christian.

However, Jews were getting married long before Jesus of Nazareth.

It's not granting them a right. It is a right they inately have and are prevented from using.

Sorry, there are still a lot of rights they cannot arrage for. Just a few examples:

One spouse collecting the other's social security (also pension) when they die- not available to gay couples, no matter what their personal legal arrangements.

Health care- few companies offer same sex couples health care benefits. No matter what the legal arrangements. No matter that it would cost them the exact same amount of money if Gary was married to Louis instead of Louise.

Health care decisions- even carefully crafted advanced directives can be challenged by the immediate family and tie it up in a battle over who gets to make the decision over health care if a person becomes incapacitated.

HOW WOULD GAY MARRIAGE/CIVIL UNION AFFECT YOU PERSONALLY? IT WOULDN'T!!!!! You can't argue money, because as I said, the costs would be the same if Gary was married to Louis or Louise.

It's kind of useless and hypocritical to argue that "homosexuality" is wrong if you yourself have engaged in conduct, particularly sexual conduct, that is considered wrong. Are you a virgin? Sex before marriage is "wrong" in pretty much all major religions? Do you receive blow jobs? Also considered "wrong".

Why don't we just get rid of civil marriage and make everyone fill out all of those seperate forms themselves... makes that honeymoon a lot less fun.

Hospitals can keep gay partners from each other, because they aren't related. If you die before you make a will, your partner is screwed. And be honest, how many people under the age of forty have a will, gay or straight?

Why are you holding them to a higher standard?

Kddani, so your theory is that since I and others may engage in things that are "wrong," we should create paths for people to use the government in order to do more wrong things? For someone so against using emotional/religious rationalization, the idea of what's wrong doesn't seem legitimate. Regarding social security, I guess if we reach a point where they are to be provided that, then civil unions could help them. As for health coverage, a great many companies are now providing partner benefits. Additionally, in discussing the matter with several people in my family who work within the health fields (one of whom is a democrat) they say the use of the "can't get in to see my partner" reasoning is so incredibly rare. My sister who is the democrat, claims it is similar to the rape defense on abortion, in that it happens very rarely and is not proper justification for a broad change. They also claim that this is another situation in which proper preparation would keep any problems from occurring. You're right, gay marriage doesn't really hurt me financially. As I've stated before, I would be more open to some sort of civil union. However, I still view marriage as a clearly defined act, and there is no reason for encroaching upon that.

As for the second post, just about all of my young professional friends have wills. It is the most intelligent thing to do. I plan on having one as soon as I have children. If I was gay with a partner, I would likewise ensure they were provided for.

You are holding 1 group of people to a higher standard than yourself.

Why do you think that is right.

Let's just do away with all of the civil benefits of marriage.. Everything from name-changing to next of kin to tax breaks and spousal protection under the 5th amendment.. etc... EVERYTHING

Marriage is now only religious and means nothing to the government.

Would that make you equally happy?

Actually, I think that would be a great decision. I would leave in place the name changing, but then again you can change your name legally anyway. Sure, works for me.

About the health care costs companies would face should gay marriage be allowed... Generally, health care is more expensive for women than it is for men. So, technically, companies would fare better (economically) to provide coverage to male-male couples than any other kind. I don't buy the "health care costs would go up" argument.

You're right about women, and obviously I'm no expert on health insurance...however, would being gay, and having a higher risk of certain problems, not raise prices? It may not, but I have heard this.

Higher risk of what problems, exactly, and proof of these risks?

Being overweight, smoking, etc. also raises prices. Skinny people are allowed to marry fat people.

BTW, no one's saying that gays have to be married by every church or whatever. "Marriage" and "civil union" are just being used interchangeable, what it comes down to are the rights. No one's going to tell your church, OMG you have to marry gay people! That's up to each church to do what they want. Just like a church/priest can decline to marry a couple who have been "living in sin" before they were married.

How about some actual, logical arguments, instead of my daddy said this, my sister said that?

Nope, it wouldn't. It hasn't for the companies that already extend health benefits to same sex partners. Gays being "at a higher risk for certain [health] problems" is not an assertion borne out by statistics.

Why can't people in this country marry an animal and have sex with it?

What is so wrong with that?

Marriage is a right. Controlling the life and death of an animal is completely acceptable (check out all that meat you eat, the fine leathers you wear, and the bone miniatures and sculptures that adorn your house).

-Rudey

Really, well seeing as my father is a corporate executive, and my sister is a clinical psychologist, I don't think they're bad people to ask. I believe I've presented a health care professional as a source, while you simply regurgitate what you've heard from God knows who. How about some logical arguments from you? Perhaps you could put aside your ACLU talking points and come up with something valid. I know your blatent disregard for people who think like I do is hard to overcome, but you lack any rationale in your statements. You simply act as though people who think like me (the majority of the country, might I add) are backwoods idiots who aren't educated enough to realize with the issue at hand is. In fact, we are people who cherish American values, and as much as this may offend you, it still remains the case. In regarding civil unions v. marriage, they are not the same. A marriage is a sacred institution which was founded with religious basis. A civil union would just provide people with certain benefits they might otherwise not recieve. It seems most people on this board can argue in a civil manner, but I guess you were not taught such things. Just because you don't value something many (most) Americans do, obviously does not mean it is of no importance. I highly doubt you're intelligent enough or refined enough to make such decisions for people, and continuing to act as an asshole doesnt aid your case.

Both parties need to consent, and animals can't give consent.

(Fortunately for us there is no requirement that one be able to enter into a legally binding contract before being killed and ground up into cheeseburger.)

Greekalum, you may very well be right. Please post your research which indicates this.

I'm assuming this is your PC way of referring to STDs (it may not be, in which case, I apologize and you can ignore this comment). I learned this in high school health class: Anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, education level, economic status, race, creed, etc., can contract STDs provided that they engage in sexual activity.

Unless HR is finding a way to hire only virgins, then providing coverage to gay employees and their families would not raise said company's health insurance prices.

And again, you result to namecalling and insults and can't defend yourself when challenged on certain points. Doesn't help your credibility.

If he's referring to HIV/AIDS in particular, the fastest growing at-risk population for contracting HIV/AIDS are young, heterosexual females, particularly African Americans. Refer to the CDC website for all the statistics.

If you could read, you would have seen the part where we decide to kill, skin, grind up, stuff an animal all without its consent. Surely they'd rather be married.

-Rudey

I actually sat in on a law class discussing it, but a good overview of the concept of informed consent is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

You are not alone.

-Rudey
--Is a great Michael Jackson song.

When referring to them being at risk, I was in part referring to STD's but also other things which can occur with contact of that kind. I am fully aware that anyone can get STD's. Just because I went to school in Alabama doesn't mean I'm still in the mindset that only gay people can get AIDS. Give me a break.

This is a true statement, however, what's left out are the odds. Anyone can get an STD, but odds are different for different sexual orientations - the stats prove that.

/Still not arguing against gay rights, however.

Next time you sit in on a class, pay attention. In that link you provided the first sentence uses the word "Person".

Once again, animals do not give you consent to slaughter them. Marriage to and sex with animals should be made legal.

-Rudey

What kind of other things?

Rudey, my point was: slaughtering an animal is not the same as that animal being able to enter into a legal contract. Hence, there is no requirement for consent to slaughter an animal. There IS currently a requirement that all parties entering into a contract such as the marriage compact be able to consent and in current case law, only a PERSON is capable of consent. Is that clearer?

It might be true that, where you live, the majority of the people with whom you discuss this issue agree with you. But, that doesn't mean that you can claim this to be the opinion for the majority of the country.

This kind of statement is simply uncalled for. What's the sense in trying to have an intelligent conversation/discussion if you're just going to resort to insults and name-calling? If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't. (It would become a grossly one-sided discussion at this point, however, should you back out of it.) If you DO want to participate, then attack the arguments, not the people making the arguments, with which you disagree.

There is nothing in this world more permanent and contractual outside of dying. That is the end all, be all.

And there are legal contracts giving you control, ownership, and possession of animals.

Consent is not an issue. It is your inability to accept that some people may like to marry an animal, have sex with an animal, just as it is the inability of many people to not be comfortable or accept gay sex or gay marriage.

-Rudey

You're right, it probably was uncalled for. It was in response to other uncalled for comments, but I wouldnt expect you to pay attention to those. KDDani, I do apologize for calling you an asshole. This of course does not change my personal feelings, but it was wrong to subject you to them in a public arena.

In regards to the other things, I'd rather not go into detail. It can happen to straight couples as well...I don't know exactly what the risks are, but from what I've heard they are various infections and what not. I prefer not to think about it, so if we could leave it at that, that'd be great.

I’d like to see that too. Some lady was on a radio show the other day arguing that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that they are disturbed individuals, therefore they are not capable of making adult decisions. :eek: What an idiot.

Technically, women could survive for a long long time without men, if only all the current men left behind loads of sperm viles. LOL. Men couldn't survive without women, though, unless they come up with an alternative womb that is capable of carrying a human child to term.

I'm sure this will make people angry...what about people who molest/are attracted to children. This is viewed as unnatural and somewhat of a mental disorder, and many people view homosexuality as the same. This is not my personal view, but I am curious as to how people would refute it.

That's pretty crazy.:eek:

PS...I'm glad you love your husband, seeing as though you married him and all.

play nice

The thing is, children cannot consent. Therefore we consider this to be a mental disorder. Especially because it harms children and pedophiles act like this doesn't matter.

What do you mean refute it? Yes, it is a fact that people commit crimes against children.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're wanting here.