Poll: Proposition 8: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry in a fashion legally recognized by the state?

[DrDeath3191]

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

I don't see how. Incest doesn't have anything close to the level of cultural acceptance that homosexuality does.

The only logical reason to keep incestuous marriage illegal is because of genetics. If homosexual marriage is allowed, this becomes a moot point. Why shouldn't two brothers/sisters get married? If they're the same gender, they aren't polluting the gene pool. Then you will have the people who claim it isn't fair that homosexual incestuous marriage is allowed, while heterosexual incestuous marriage is not. Then we enter this situation again.

And just because it isn't widely accepted now doesn't mean it won't be later.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I can see no problem with any form of gay marriage or adoption.

/thread, unless anyone wishes to provoke my wrath.

Don't quite get what you mean there.

Normally, I'm open to debate on a matter. Save when the matter involves infringing someone else's liberties. In essence, arguing gays should not be permitted to marry is rather like arguing that I should not be able to have milk in my coffee. I do not tolerate it. I do not tolerate any infringements of the rights of me, myself, and those I care about, and since a very close and old friend of mine recently came out of the closet, that means that I do not tolerate the suggestion homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.

Hope that's clear old fellow.

Right, I think you might have misinterpreted my statement, what I'm essentially saying is that I have nothing against gay people or gay marriage and would like all aspects of that to be legalized. You seem to think I'm anti-gay, which I am not.

No, sir, you seem to have misinterpreted my position. I was saying that your statement was the end of the thread, as it was simple. I was saying that your statement was, in essence, the only correct one. I simply posted that above to clarify my point, in case you were to assume I was anti-gay.

I apologise for the aggressive tone, sir.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I mean that they can get married. What they're parading on about isn't marriage, because the legal contract calls for two adults of opposite gender. I have no problems with homosexual marriage, but I do have issue with single-sex marriage.

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

What you seem to be saying is: "Gay folk can get married...but not to the gender of their choice. Only to the opposite sex."
Which is...
Just.
Well, it's surely something, but I don't quite have the words to describe what.

Possibly you shoud choose to quote the forum's own Benjamin Crosshaw, in which Dr. Death's argument can be summarised by the phrase 'Pants-on-head-retarded'. And since the esteemed Doctor has failed to support his argument, I hereby nominate the debate to be...*Crunches rough aggregate of valid posts on both sides*

231, to three, in favour of homosexual marriage.

 

[DrDeath3191]

I mean that they can get married. What they're parading on about isn't marriage, because the legal contract calls for two adults of opposite gender. I have no problems with homosexual marriage, but I do have issue with single-sex marriage.

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

What you seem to be saying is: "Gay folk can get married...but not to the gender of their choice. Only to the opposite sex."
Which is...
Just.
Well, it's surely something, but I don't quite have the words to describe what.

That's what I'm saying, because that's what marriage is. It is the legal union of a man and a woman. I'm sorry if I sound like a homophobe for not agreeing with everybody.

 

[DrDeath3191]

I mean that they can get married. What they're parading on about isn't marriage, because the legal contract calls for two adults of opposite gender. I have no problems with homosexual marriage, but I do have issue with single-sex marriage.

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

What you seem to be saying is: "Gay folk can get married...but not to the gender of their choice. Only to the opposite sex."
Which is...
Just.
Well, it's surely something, but I don't quite have the words to describe what.

Possibly you shoud choose to quote the forum's own Benjamin Crosshaw, in which Dr. Death's argument can be summarised by the phrase 'Pants-on-head-retarded'. And since the esteemed Doctor has failed to support his argument, I hereby nominate the debate to be...*Crunches rough aggregate of valid posts on both sides*

231, to three, in favour of homosexual marriage.

The legal contract of a marriage calls for one man, one woman. If homosexuals want to benefit from marriage, they should meet the requirements. Their rights aren't being taken away, they're not meeting the requirements for the benefit. If I want a Veteran's Discount at my local store, I need to fight in a war. I don't really want to fight in a war, so I choose not to. As a consequence, I do not get the benefit of the discount. I absolutely suck at coming up with analogies, I know, but the point still stands that homosexual people do have the right to get married, but they choose not to excercise it.

 

[cobra_ky]

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

I don't see how. Incest doesn't have anything close to the level of cultural acceptance that homosexuality does.

The only logical reason to keep incestuous marriage illegal is because of genetics. If homosexual marriage is allowed, this becomes a moot point. Why shouldn't two brothers/sisters get married? If they're the same gender, they aren't polluting the gene pool. Then you will have the people who claim it isn't fair that homosexual incestuous marriage is allowed, while heterosexual incestuous marriage is not. Then we enter this situation again.

And just because it isn't widely accepted now doesn't mean it won't be later.

except those arguments would be just as valid now, since there's no requirement for married couples to have children. By that logic, you could argue incestuous marriages should be legalized if one partner has a vasectomy, or is postmenopausal, or for any reason unable to reproduce.

it took millenia for people to get comfortable with the idea of people from different races marrying, let alone two people of the same gender. i really don't see incest suddenly being accepted that quickly, nor do i see gay marriage making it any more likely.

The legal contract of a marriage calls for one man, one woman. If homosexuals want to benefit from marriage, they should meet the requirements. Their rights aren't being taken away, they're not meeting the requirements for the benefit. If I want a Veteran's Discount at my local store, I need to fight in a war. I don't really want to fight in a war, so I choose not to. As a consequence, I do not get the benefit of the discount. I absolutely suck at coming up with analogies, I know, but the point still stands that homosexual people do have the right to get married, but they choose not to excercise it.

then the obvious is question is why that contract should only be valid when entered into by a man and a woman. as a heterosexual, i'm tired of the government stripping me of my right to marry another man if i ever wanted to.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

As for the above, so if a gay man wants to get married and be happy, he should go back in time and be born as a woman? Or live out a lie of a marriage by marrying a woman he has no love for?

The last thing the world needs is for our taxes to go in the pockets of gay people, in the form of government financial aid...

Seriously, am i the only one that thinks that this is WRONG?

Basically every study ever done on the subject has concluded that legalizing gay marriage would generate MILLIONS in tax income for state governments.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/EconImpactCAMarriage.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14047416/Economic-Impact-of-Allowing-SameSex-Marriage-in-Vermont

Yeah, I'm sorry, but we'd lose tax money letting gays marry?

Can you imagine how many tens of thousands of dollars a typical gay wedding must cost to hold?

Just hiring trained poodles,and having them dyed pink to pull the carriage to the church is going to set you back a few hundred. It'll pour so much back into the economy we could afford to carry on with the war for another week or so, or alternatively, fix everything else.

More seriously, the main argument I see is 'if we allow gays to marry, then people will want to marry their pets, or their furniture next'.

No, they won't. Shut up.

(Actually they will, and already do want to, but it doesn't mean we'll let them because we allow two humans to marry)

To me, the answer is, let gays marry, but if the church doesn't like it, don't let them marry at church. Oh hang on, at least over here in the UK, churches are registered as a charity, which makes them a business and bound by laws not to discriminate. Best teach your organist the chords to YMCA, Father.

(I know I've used lots of lazy gay stereotypes in my post, but I'm on their side, and I reckon most gays,hell most people can take a joke, provided it's not meant with malice.

 

[DrDeath3191]

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

I don't see how. Incest doesn't have anything close to the level of cultural acceptance that homosexuality does.

The only logical reason to keep incestuous marriage illegal is because of genetics. If homosexual marriage is allowed, this becomes a moot point. Why shouldn't two brothers/sisters get married? If they're the same gender, they aren't polluting the gene pool. Then you will have the people who claim it isn't fair that homosexual incestuous marriage is allowed, while heterosexual incestuous marriage is not. Then we enter this situation again.

And just because it isn't widely accepted now doesn't mean it won't be later.

except those arguments would be just as valid now, since there's no requirement for married couples to have children. By that logic, you could argue incestuous marriages should be legalized if one partner has a vasectomy, or is postmenopausal, or for any reason unable to reproduce.

it took millenia for people to get comfortable with the idea of people from different races marrying, let alone two people of the same gender. i really don't see incest suddenly being accepted that quickly, nor do i see gay marriage making it any more likely.

The legal contract of a marriage calls for one man, one woman. If homosexuals want to benefit from marriage, they should meet the requirements. Their rights aren't being taken away, they're not meeting the requirements for the benefit. If I want a Veteran's Discount at my local store, I need to fight in a war. I don't really want to fight in a war, so I choose not to. As a consequence, I do not get the benefit of the discount. I absolutely suck at coming up with analogies, I know, but the point still stands that homosexual people do have the right to get married, but they choose not to excercise it.

then the obvious is question is why that contract should only be valid when entered into by a man and a woman. as a heterosexual, i'm tired of the government stripping me of my right to marry another man if i ever wanted to.

Regarding the incest topic, you have a point. I apologize. I was wrong. It could very well be done without gay marriage. However...

With that said, you've provided the origin of the Slippery Slope. Tell me, if we change the definition, what's to stop us from changing it again as soon as it becomes convenient? What is the final line where we say 'this is the last revision of marriage'?

 

[DrDeath3191]

That's what I'm saying, because that's what marriage is. It is the legal union of a man and a woman. I'm sorry if I sound like a homophobe for not agreeing with everybody.

You don't sound like a bigot, you are a bigot.
No two ways about it.

We used to not classify black folk as people.
They were property.

Are you okay with that?
Does that seem right to you?
Definitions were changed in order to adapt with the times.

What you're saying is that tradition is more important than human rights.
New contracts are drawn up all the time when the old ones no longer fit.

Okay, so we're going down this road now, are we? Comparing this situation to slavery is insulting to the latter party. The 'unfairness' of the homosexual marriage issue is nothing compared to the suffering and cruelty of slavery. We aren't treating homosexuals as less than human. So please don't make this completely inaccurate and insulting comparison.

Anyway, yes. I can agree that some things must change over time. But does marriage need to? I don't believe it does. Gay people can get married, as I said, but they don't want to follow the legal channels. They made a choice, and they will bear the consequences.

 

[cobra_ky]

Okay, so we're going down this road now, are we? Comparing this situation to slavery is insulting to the latter party. The 'unfairness' of the homosexual marriage issue is nothing compared to the suffering and cruelty of slavery. We aren't treating homosexuals as less than human. So please don't make this completely inaccurate and insulting comparison.

Anyway, yes. I can agree that some things must change over time. But does marriage need to? I don't believe it does. Gay people can get married, as I said, but they don't want to follow the legal channels. They made a choice, and they will bear the consequences.

the much better comparison is miscegenation. up until 1967, it was illegal to marry someone of a different race in many parts of the U.S. Then, the definition changed to allow people to marry across racial lines. Was that wrong?

Gay people want to marry, but as they are now, most legal channels won't let them marry the people they want to. is marrying across genders really that much worse than marrying across races?

With that said, you've provided the origin of the Slippery Slope. Tell me, if we change the definition, what's to stop us from changing it again as soon as it becomes convenient? What is the final line where we say 'this is the last revision of marriage'?

Polygamy was outlawed in the 1800's. Miscegenation was legalized in the 1960's. the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage in the United States has changed many, many times throughout history. The "origin of the slippery slope" was defining marriage in the first place.

I believe people should have the right to marry regardless of gender. Anything else is another topic for another time.

 

[JohnJacobJingle]

OT: I'm a lesbian, why am I considered a lesser-person for wanting to be married?

It's not like there's any "sanctity" in marriage anymore, anyway. Straight people have been screwing it up for aaaaaaaaaaaages. Just let me get married so that when I'm in a coma, I have someone who will look out for my interests.

And I pay my taxes! rabblerabblerabble...[/quote]


Nemu:

Just trying to get a debate started on this one. See where people stand. I post on other stuff too, and this is the first one that's had a response!

Part of the issue is cultural (Our marriage is right! Your marriage is wrong!...Because we say so!)and people out there really want, in some cases, for the state to say that their religion is important. These are the same people who argue that they should have things like laws enforcing the Bible and stuff like that, because they really do worship authority, literally, and want the one in the sky and the one on the ground to be exactly the same. In short, for them, religion is an issue of culture and control, and they are perfectly fine having the government make sure that they have cultural uniformity and control over their neighbors on this issue. And these, by the way, are the same people who tend to argue for "small government"!. Go figure.

And part of it is, you got it, benefits. There are benefits to being married and more safety nets in regards for interests between partners. And it is, quite simply, wrong to prevent consenting adults who are part of your democracy enjoying those privileges.

As for marriage being sanctified?

Um.....it depends on what you want. A lot of marriages in the US before the 20th century, at least, were done over poverty, pregnancy or keeping land and other assets inside of a family. Love had nothing to do with it, it was either a business arrangement, or done to avoid social stigma.

Marriage is what YOU make of it, in my opinion. Being an institution doesn't make it pure or clean or moral. The police officer, or the school teacher, they function in an institution with pretty honorable aims, in theory. Some of them are good, and some of them are bad, though, and being in those institutions doesn't stop them from being bad, and in some cases, can actually make it easier for them to pull stuff off.

So, I guess it is as sanctified as the two people involved make it. Social pressure against diverse is just that...social pressure. And it's breaking down because there is less to offer as a carrot (come out of the closet, and I'll write you out of the will! Now where is my Burger King crown?) and it is increasingly frowned upon to try and enforce other taboos after the civil rights movement and feminist movement and gay pride movement in the 70s and 80s..does it still happen? Hell yes, and a horrid thing too.

 

[JohnJacobJingle]

Specifically, what unions should the government endorse with the title of marriage, and how should said unions be treated? Should the government try to enforce or endorse these unions? Should the government get involved at all?

My person feelings are that if you want to have a state that does not have a religious or cultural agenda, then you should get out of the business of marriage entirely, since it means such different things to such different cultural/ethnic groups, and trying to accommodate such differing values will be very difficult without having to create in effect separate justice systems for those groups...e.g. I know of some ethnicities where a form of kidnapping is considered perfectly legal by the community at large, and others where spousal abuse and even rape is tolerated by the head of the household.

Thoughts? Trying to get the opinion of a community whose views have so far been rather diverse and thoughtful...and hopefully, this will correct that.

Also, if you are going to use evidence, please include a name or some kind of link so other people can see it...ty!

Why is the poll so formally stated, I wish people would get over gay marriage, if they are happy with each other they should be able to get married, it doesn't really matter, here we are whining about something so minuscule that gets attention, we have alot better things to worry about than should we let a man and a man or woman and woman be happy together and have a government accept this.

What I'm trying to say is this: SHUT UP! let it happen if you don't like it don't do it, nobody is being physically or mentally hurt(rare exceptions) by letting them call eaach other husband or wife.

To get specifics....if possible.

Apparently, it's not.

Doh!

 

[JohnJacobJingle]

l

 

[JohnJacobJingle]

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

I don't see how. Incest doesn't have anything close to the level of cultural acceptance that homosexuality does.

The only logical reason to keep incestuous marriage illegal is because of genetics. If homosexual marriage is allowed, this becomes a moot point. Why shouldn't two brothers/sisters get married? If they're the same gender, they aren't polluting the gene pool. Then you will have the people who claim it isn't fair that homosexual incestuous marriage is allowed, while heterosexual incestuous marriage is not. Then we enter this situation again.

And just because it isn't widely accepted now doesn't mean it won't be later.

except those arguments would be just as valid now, since there's no requirement for married couples to have children. By that logic, you could argue incestuous marriages should be legalized if one partner has a vasectomy, or is postmenopausal, or for any reason unable to reproduce.

it took millenia for people to get comfortable with the idea of people from different races marrying, let alone two people of the same gender. i really don't see incest suddenly being accepted that quickly, nor do i see gay marriage making it any more likely.

The legal contract of a marriage calls for one man, one woman. If homosexuals want to benefit from marriage, they should meet the requirements. Their rights aren't being taken away, they're not meeting the requirements for the benefit. If I want a Veteran's Discount at my local store, I need to fight in a war. I don't really want to fight in a war, so I choose not to. As a consequence, I do not get the benefit of the discount. I absolutely suck at coming up with analogies, I know, but the point still stands that homosexual people do have the right to get married, but they choose not to excercise it.

then the obvious is question is why that contract should only be valid when entered into by a man and a woman. as a heterosexual, i'm tired of the government stripping me of my right to marry another man if i ever wanted to.

Regarding the incest topic, you have a point. I apologize. I was wrong. It could very well be done without gay marriage. However...

With that said, you've provided the origin of the Slippery Slope. Tell me, if we change the definition, what's to stop us from changing it again as soon as it becomes convenient? What is the final line where we say 'this is the last revision of marriage'?

Okay, but where do you draw the line as to that contract and indeed what kind of contracts?

I can think of a time when slavery and segregation were perfectly legal under old rules....also, what if we make it so that, in order to be elected to higher office, you need to be a specific religion? Under your logic, people can always convert....we could make that same arguement, and say that if someone wasn't, say, a Wiccan NeoPagan (redundant, I know) they couldn't hold a government job at any level...or reverse it, and do the same for certain branches of Christianity (goodbye Jewish community, Episcopalians, or Baptists)...

That would ALSO be entirely legal under that frame of argument. Are you arguing that heterosexual marriage is akin to fighting in a war? I don't see them entirely the same way..one seems to me the sacrifice of personal freedom that is supposed to benefit your community (although in many cases people enlist out of poverty). Marriage doesn't strike me as being nearly as selfless, in fact you could argue that it is based on pleasing yourself (selfish) and/or pleasing the other person (selfless). Neither of which benefits the community, just you and the other person, and possibly whatever children you happen to raise. Your parents may want grandchildren, and your family may want you to marry based off of money or status, but that frankly strikes me as a bit "not their dang business" in a day of relative financial independance compared to previous generation (Emphasis on the word RELATIVE....it has reversed slightly recently due to the economic downturn, problems getting a work with low-level academic qualifications, e.g. a BA, and few children should work until their teenage years) but...yeah.

As for wanting things in culture to always be the same? Not gonna happen, man. Culture does change, and even so-called "ancient traditions" are usually relatively modern innovations, and were more diffuse and not as common in the past as people claim...you want some fun, look up the history of the Hijab, and how it varied so much in the past (I can give you Muslim communities where MEN wore the veil!!!) and the same is for culture and marriage...it used to be best that people have multiple wives to keep their tribe or family line going!!!! Rules change over time, to adapt to the NEEDS of the time....in Russia after the 2nd World War infidelity on the side of the men was basically accepted because so many men DIED after World War II!!!!! It took decades for that imbalance to self-correct!

 

[jimtheviking]

Wait, what? How is...

OK, first, it's not like there's a super-secret handshake that makes a gay marriage different from a straight marriage. If one partner dies, and next of kin is notified, then it should go in whatever manner is specified - partner, parent, sibling, etc. - by the deceased. If no manner is specified, then it will go the way it's always gone - to the partner first.

It's still, for all intents and purposes, a marriage under the Law and all the procedures that follow the marriage order - spousal benefits, tax benefits, immigration benefits, etc. - would apply in the same way. It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman getting married. Marriage is marriage.

Yes you are correct ethically and morally, I agree with completely there. But legally there is such a handshake. Right now, in law, there is a difference between a same sex marriage and a straight marriage. With a reasonable judge this wouldn't make much of a difference. With a conservative judge? He could use the law as it stands to (for instance) take the kids from the custody of the remaining parent (if that kid was adopted).

Gay unions, marriages, whatever you want to call them need to be properly legally protected and recognized, not be just a token "here you are have this then" to the gay communities.

Uh... Right. That's what I just said. We should allow gays to marry if they want because, frankly, there's no reason not to. There's no super-secret handshake that Gay Marriages would get that Straight Marriages wouldn't. No special benefits. Nothing. You love someone, you want to spend your life with them, you want a legally binding and recognized agreement, you marry them. End of story.

That's what I'm saying, because that's what marriage is. It is the legal union of a man and a woman. I'm sorry if I sound like a homophobe for not agreeing with everybody.

You don't sound like a bigot, you are a bigot.
No two ways about it.

We used to not classify black folk as people.
They were property.

Are you okay with that?
Does that seem right to you?
Definitions were changed in order to adapt with the times.

What you're saying is that tradition is more important than human rights.
New contracts are drawn up all the time when the old ones no longer fit.

Okay, so we're going down this road now, are we? Comparing this situation to slavery is insulting to the latter party. The 'unfairness' of the homosexual marriage issue is nothing compared to the suffering and cruelty of slavery. We aren't treating homosexuals as less than human. So please don't make this completely inaccurate and insulting comparison.

Anyway, yes. I can agree that some things must change over time. But does marriage need to? I don't believe it does. Gay people can get married, as I said, but they don't want to follow the legal channels. They made a choice, and they will bear the consequences.

Wait. Your logic here is faulty.

Being gay is no more a choice than being straight or being Chinese or being Scottish is. Being Catholic is a choice. Being a fan of Englebert Humperdinck is a choice. Your sexual orientation and to whom you are attracted is not a choice. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is an inherent behaviour and not a learned one. The repression of homosexual tendencies is a learned behaviour, and thus a choice, but the tendencies themselves are not learned. The historical record supports this - read Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century" for some good examples.

But yeah. Homosexuality as a choice? That's the sort of thinking that fell out of favour several years ago. You may want to update your worldview.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

My opinion on this is that the entire "gay marriage" issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with actual "RIGHTS" and every thing to do with two sides fighting over a damn "word", a "term".

Gays in many states INCLUDING california already have recognized provisions for CIVIL UNIONS which are essentially the same thing as "Marriages" except they don't USE the word "Marriage", which seems to make a great deal of people butt-hurt (pun intended).

As I see it, Gays really just want to be able to get "married" only to win some sort of self-righteous battle in which they get to "win" something meaningless... the right to be as MISERABLE as every other person who made the mistake of walking down the aisle for all the wrong reasons. As soon as they realize that being Married also means that they can be DIVORCED and someone can take half their shit (no pun intended) AND collect alimony payments/child support they will regret all this nonsense of fighting a moral word-war with the moral conservatives and religious institutions.

On the other hand, the Moral-police religious institutions are wasting their time fighting over the same useless issue. Look, the thing is very simple... step aside, let the Gays have their "marriages" in name. And then refuse to honor it, if you feel that strongly. The government cannot force a religious organization to change it's beliefs or practices. If the Catholic church decides as a policy it will NOT marry homosexuals and it will not recognize any such marriages made by the state or rogue Priests/off-shoot religious groups, then there is nothing that can be done. The government cannot FORCE the Catholic church, Protestant church, or Islamic community to marry and accept the marriage of homosexuals.

So sure, they get to mark "married" on their tax forms at work. Whoop dee doo, big deal. I wouldn't stand in the way of that. And neither should any church.
Let homosexuals get state marriages if it makes them happy and more importantly, makes them shut up.
Once they have that, they will have exhausted anything worth bitching about.
You can change the LAW but you can't change people's beliefs or minds through force. Give them what they want, and the homosexual fad will eventually fade away like the free-love hippy movement.

Thats my opinion, i'm entitled to it.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I mean that they can get married. What they're parading on about isn't marriage, because the legal contract calls for two adults of opposite gender. I have no problems with homosexual marriage, but I do have issue with single-sex marriage.

And the Slippery Slope argument does hold a very small amount of water: you could very easily legalize incestuous marriage if you allow homosexual marriage.

What you seem to be saying is: "Gay folk can get married...but not to the gender of their choice. Only to the opposite sex."
Which is...
Just.
Well, it's surely something, but I don't quite have the words to describe what.

Possibly you shoud choose to quote the forum's own Benjamin Crosshaw, in which Dr. Death's argument can be summarised by the phrase 'Pants-on-head-retarded'. And since the esteemed Doctor has failed to support his argument, I hereby nominate the debate to be...*Crunches rough aggregate of valid posts on both sides*

231, to three, in favour of homosexual marriage.

The legal contract of a marriage calls for one man, one woman. If homosexuals want to benefit from marriage, they should meet the requirements. Their rights aren't being taken away, they're not meeting the requirements for the benefit. If I want a Veteran's Discount at my local store, I need to fight in a war. I don't really want to fight in a war, so I choose not to. As a consequence, I do not get the benefit of the discount. I absolutely suck at coming up with analogies, I know, but the point still stands that homosexual people do have the right to get married, but they choose not to excercise it.

Indeed. And a black man had the right to hold a relationship with a white woman in the South in 1935, it was simply a right he could never exercise because he and the woman would have been killed in so horrible a fashion the SS itself would turn away in disgust. Oh, and don't try and be clever. It dosen't suit you. Your entire argument is based on a silly attempt to say "look, Im a bein' clever momma!", rendering it down to a particularly eregrious example of utter, abject pedantry and stupidity.

Now, on to my argument, wiseass. What objection do you have to the extension of the marriage contract to include 'Two consenting adults', as opposed to 'a man and a woman.'