Gay Marriage

It is, in most part, about the rights, that's true. That's why even though civil unions are available, there's still a fight for marriage. Personally, I think so long as it's two consenting adults, then what they do shouldn't have any weight on my life so long as it's not damaging to society as a whole. Of course, that last bit will be a point people can jump on but I'm an atheist so I don't think morality comes from religion anyways. It's just not feasible to create laws based on religion in the USA since we have such a variety of religions. As such, it doesn't make sense to use religion as a deterrent against LGBT marriages because if you were to base your laws off religious doctrine, let's say Christianity since that's the most common one, there'd be laws against stuff like divorce, adultery, and shellfish. Which would suck because I love shellfish. Broken even further down, using divorce as an example, you can get a civil divorce as recognized by the government, but that doesn't mean you have a spiritual divorce as recognized at your church. So a church may consider you still married when the government does not. Does that mean the government should force that church allow you to remarry at that church/in that faith? No, but at the same time, the church should not and does not in today's society disallow the governmental proceedings that occur when one divorces.

That is a fantastic example Xueli. I like the way you think.

Yeah, I got chu! *high five* But in all seriousness, divorce is the example I use a lot for when I explain about religion and laws. :P

They should legalize marriage for all... Plus give gay couples the same rights heterosexual couple receive. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not a requirement for permits to have sex... it's a null legal argument being advanced by the attorney for the state's extremist Republican governor, in a case where the state's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban is being challenged. The "marriage is for procreation" argument has been destroyed and laughed out of court before, and it will be again. This is a flash in the pan.

By and large, homosexual couples already do have the the same rights and legal protections as heterosexual couples. The /few/ instances where that's not the case- like that lesbi that had to pay a huge amount of inheritance tax because her partner passed away- that should be addressed on the inheritance tax issue, not the partnership issue. There's no reason for the gubment to grub someone else's money simply because they died. It's reasons like that that we get rich people sending their assets to the Cayman Islands. The whole marriage thing is a battle for the word itself as there is nothing a civil union lacks that a marriage has. The only weaknesses the civil union has... are pretty much the same weaknesses as marriage - not every state recognizes it. Also, I think we keep calling marriage a "right." It really isn't a right. It's a privilege that one (two, really) goes through after going through a few other steps in the process. I should create a whole post on the differences between rights and privileges. We over use "right" about as much as we over use "epic."

I say let them do what they think makes them happy, they deserve to be happy like the rest of us. I got nothing against gays, only rule i imply is the three strike rule. They hit on me once, i tell them i'm not gay, second time i warn them i will punch if they do it again, and third time i punch them.

"By and large homosexual couples already do have the same rights and legal protections" Try going into a hospital in a state where gay marriage is not recognized and making that claim at the bedside of a dying person who wants to be with their partner, or someone stuck in a coma when they told their partner not to allow that to happen to them.

<i>By and large, homosexual couples already do have the the same rights and legal protections as heterosexual couples.</i><br><br> I'm sorry, but this does not even come close to being accurate.<br><br> Please click through <a href="http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples">the link I posted</a> and review the information there. There are over a thousand rights (yes, <i>legally recognized rights</i>) and privileges both which are only granted to couples in marriages recognized by the US government. If you want to remedy that injustice, you have two choices: change all thousand-plus of those laws and regulations so that they no longer discriminate against gay couples or distinguish between marriages and civil unions, and change any others that happen to come up which relate to marital status--or allow gay couples to marry.<br><br> Unless someone already has a preexisting bias against allowing gay couples to marry, the choice is really a no-brainer in terms of both social justice and regulatory simplicity. It strengthens family bonds and encourages commitments between couples. It is, ironically, the <i>conservative</i> choice for anyone who does not consider "conservative" to be synonymous with an anti-gay agenda.<br><br> <i>The whole marriage thing is a battle for the word itself as there is nothing a civil union lacks that a marriage has.</i><br><br> This is demonstrably false. See the above link.<br><br> <i>Also, I think we keep calling marriage a "right." It really isn't a right. It's a privilege that one (two, really) goes through after going through a few other steps in the process.</i><br><br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#Marriage_as_a_fundamental_right">The Supreme Court disagrees with you</a>.<br><br> <i>I should create a whole post on the differences between rights and privileges.</i><br><br> I cordially suggest you learn a bit more about the subject before trying to post authoritatively on it. The arguments you have presented do not comport with demonstrable facts.