It becomes a civil right ONLY when its denied to a certain section of the population. Why should some be granted the contract and right of marriage and others refused it?

Morals are both subjective and logical, as most people in the western world have had a similiar education, understanding of what is right and what is wrong and therefore have a grasping of human morality and their responsibility to society.

We know its wrong to kill another human being, so thats logical as its a shared opinion by society. Minor issues though, become much more subjective, for example is it acceptable for a couple to have sex in a public environment or for a human being to take advantage of another human being financially?

As one o' them queerosexuals, I don't really care about marriage. I don't need a piece of paper to make my love 'official', and it's always been a religious thing in my eyes anyway.

That said, I don't see why anyone should be stopped from marrying someone of their own gender. What's the big deal?

This is what I'd like hip hop bunny hop to address if he wants to take issues with what we're saying. I think there are some clear-cut issues here I shall raise again:

(1). WHY should anyone be "stopped from marrying someone of their own gender"? I am asking for something a little more than Franco's retort that marriage is "traditionally" between a man and a woman, I'd like to hear a clear moral reason, and some form of justification as to why your objection is greater than people's right to love each other.

(2). This is the most important part: What the fuck gives anyone the right to direct how other people live their lives? How could anyone possibly think they are in any position to dictate who I want to marry or express my love for? It's MY life, and any kind of biases you have are completely irrelevant and should be kept to yourself.

(3). Consequences of gay marriage: I saw Rubato post an interesting little pie chart detailing the consequences very clearly:

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/...aymarriage.gif

So, what I'd like from anyone arguing against is some form of address to these issues, which so far I've failed to find.

I know hip hop bunny hop is very good at finding links which may support his position, but I would like something a little more relevant than Tablet next time please, which Unknown Soldier, as a catholic, claimed was a poor source.

I'll encapsulate my argument in brief, as I've already addressed that point on this board several times, and I touched on it in this thread before Pepe entered the discussion.

Anyways, in regards to the point you labelled #1, same-sex couples are allowed to have private ceremonies and all that. There is no law preventing them from doing so. In the context of the USA, the arguments regarding homosexual marriage have to do with state recognized marriage. So, there is nothing interfering with the ritual of marriage or their ability to love one another.

I, however, object to state recognized marriage same sex marriage because:

To which you may point out not all married couples have children, to which I'd say:


In regards to the point you labelled #2;

All of these quotes were pulled from this article, which is the same old "Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" which I've quoted far too many times on this board.... LINK to it here

Below is a quote from earlier pages in this thread from myself, which remains relevant, and should serve as a helpful jump to pre-Pepe discussion of the issue.

The points you've raised for state recognized marriage are really just a bucket full of holes.

Point 1- Collecting a deceased's social security shouldn't really be an issue in a same sex marriage, as there is a strong liklihood that both partners would've been paying contributions anyway and why shouldn't a the partner of a deceased collect contributions that their partner has worked for and paid into, unless you're trying to claim that the marriage union could've been done with this future ulterior motive in mind!

Point 2- Getting cover under a spouse's health insurance needn't be an issue either, in the USA health insurance comes as part of a workers package right? Or the person taking out the health insurance pays a premium dependent on their health and who is covered? If this be the case, insurance companies are taking a calculated risk with those that they cover, insurance companies as far as I'm aware usually make a nice profit otherwise they wouldn't be in business.

Point 3- "The propagation of society is a compelling state interest" Now that statement is extremely debatable, in a country with a falling population that may hold some truth, but does the USA have a decling population problem?

It will, if gays marry. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY LIKE THAT?

Honestly, I think that given the state of the world, I place more value in couples who can't, or choose not to procreate.

/misanthropy

NO. I won't be happy till the earth is so over populated that we run out of resources and resort to cannibalism.

I've always wanted to try a piece of human thigh

WTF happened to Skeltezons post?

Looks like he deleted it.