10-year old Arkansas boy refuses to say pledgeFollow

Going to fix this for you. It isn't about saying "Let's stick it to them there homos" its:

Man+Woman=Marriage
Woman+Man=Marriage

Said man and woman can be anything, any race, ethnicity, religion, political ideology, etc. And that is what marriage had been defined as Man+Woman(And since it has been defined just that way, the previously mentioned variables have no impact on it, having the same sex for one of the two involved does). That is also what a number of states have decided now.

Going on with this now we can point out the difference. Marriage is Man+Woman.

Woman+Woman!/ Man+Woman
Man+Man !/ Man+Woman

Since neither of these are Man+Woman they do not qualify for marriage.

It isn't about picking on the poor oppressed homosexuals, its about marriage.

If its about being able to use the word marriage, get over it and make up your own word that you can give its own definition, problem solved.

Why would you want to?

In what state of mind would you ever consider that something with which it is appropriate to go?

But why? That's not an argument at all. What difference would it make if the definition were changed, really? There's a minority of people that want a harmless right and why not give it to them; why not? Why give them something under a different name when they could just be lumped under the same "word" as everyone else, what's the point in seperation?

I have yet to see a single reason against gay marriage that doesn't involve the random flailing of definitions and "but..but.. this is how it's always been!". The gays aren't exactly coming to steal our marriages.

It's been too long since our last Gay Marriage thread. Why, it's sunk all the way to #22 on the first page!

Edited, Nov 13th 2009 11:44am by Jophiel

I think everyone should marry a gay. They'd be our little token spouse #2 (or #1 in some cases). Having a gay around the house could be handy at times, I suppose.

Depending on level of kink, the two could go hand in hand. Or something in something, anyway.

Edited, Nov 13th 2009 11:55am by BrownDuck

And just think of the savings when it comes time to redecorate?

Man, having a gay around the house is starting to sound pretty decent.

His temper tantrums could outclass those of any given 16-year-old girl.

Yeah, giving blacks the right to vote offended some people, too. Quite a lot of people, in fact.

So, uh, how about that changing of equality from "seperate but 'equal'" to integration?

Does two gay people getting married hurt you directly? No.

Does two gay people getting married hurt you indirectly? If you go with the Varrus or Gbaji school of thought, it indirectly increases your taxes since two previously single filers now get to married-filing-jointly, but they complain that everything anyone does increases their taxes, so I find the argument a little superfluous.

Does it hurt your children? No.

Does it hurt the gay's children? Well, if they have any from a previous marriage, or from artificial insemination or adoption, it could be argued that having two fathers or mothers can mess them up. However, it can also be argued that having a strong family unit, regardless of the sex and genders of the parents, is way more important and far more beneficial for the kid than having a single parent. Plenty of messed up kids come from weak family units with a mother and father, because the bond between the parents wasn't strong enough and they stayed together "for the sake of the children." Kids know when their parents aren't happy.

Does it hurt society? Massachusetts is still around. It hasn't been smited nor blow up with a meteorite. In fact, it's going on pretty much as it did before.

The majority of arguments against gay marriage boil down to "gay sex is gross, I don't like it, and I'm squicked out by the thought of men married to each other having buttsex (although I secretly watch lesbian ****.)"

If God didn't intend for it to be natural, He wouldn't have made it feel so good.

I've liked the idea of abolishing state sponsored marriage and giving everyone civil unions since I thought it up a year ago. I doubt I was the first one to think it up, but it sounds like a great plan to me! If you want to have a religious civil union, that can be a marriage.

Also, I firmly support opening up civil unions to partnerships involving more than just two people, but I'm also all for ethical ****-dom.