HOORAY! Maybe now we can begin to stop the last greatest human rights violation of our time in the United States!

If I ever get divorced from my husband, I will marry a woman! Yes I will!

How DARE the government tell me who I can or can't marry (as long as it's consenting adult!)

I knew it was WRONG to deny Gay people the right to get married when I was four years old! I wanted to marry my best friend Kristin and my mom said I couldn't because two girls could not get married and I was like "WHAT?!?!?! WHY NOT?????????? WTF???"

GAY MARRIAGE NOW!!!

Wow, I can't believe how long this thread has gone on.

My grandmother was a very religious woman who spent many hours studying the bible. I know how she would feel about gay marriage. She would feel that it was a result of the workings of the devil. She would probably say that although she doesn't believe in it, she believes God would forgive people who are gay because the devil worked their evil on them and they had no control over it.

Me, I am not sure about how I feel on many things. Like hunny said, I don't understand how such a "loving" God can let such bad things happen to people. I have prayed a great deal in my life, but most of those prayers have gone unanswered and bad things have happened anyways. Based upon that, I want to believe in God, I think I believe in God, but I am unsure of what all I do and don't believe in terms of religion and faith.

However, I do believe that men and women were made differently for a reason. I believe that it was so they can form a marriage and be fruitful and reproduce. Based upon that, I believe that "marriage" is something that takes place between a man and a woman.

I was angered when I saw a child who was suspended from school because she was praying and the atheists were offended and had prayer in school made illegal.

I am angered when I see someone end a life by abortion when there are so many people out there who are waiting to be blessed with a child in their own lives and would have loved to have had that child.

However, I am especially angered when someone who has a different belief than I do tries to dictate how I should lead my life just because our belief system is different. So, what I am saying is, just because I don't believe gay unions should be called "marriage", just because I believe prayer should be allowed in school and just because I don't personally believe in abortion, I don't believe I have the right to prevent someone else who does believe in those things from doing what they believe is right.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't get married if you are gay, but don't tell a gay person that just because you personally feel that way, they cannot Celebrate their love through marriage. If you don't believe in prayer and God, fine, then don't pray. But don't persecute a child or another human being for exercising their beliefs by praying or believing in God. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't get one. But that doesn't mean that the person who believes that life does not begin at conception, or who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion they do believe in.

I think it is arrogant of a person, or group of people to automatically assume that what they believe is the only right way and everyone else should bow down to their beliefs or be persecuted. We were founded first and foremost on freedom. Therefore, as long as we are not harming another human being in our beliefs, we should be allowed to practice those beliefs freely.

I don't know if this makes sense or not, but I feel better having added my two cents.

Bravo, Susan.

Did you read my post about being married for 25 years to a man who was, at one time, my stepbrother?

I find it utterly ridiculous that the state of Texas considers these unions incestuous. There is no shared DNA, so what's the problem?

I did read your post, and I don't see a problem with the marriage at all.

How do you feel about sibling or other relational marriage with the situation of there being shared DNA but no intention or ability to have children? i.e. sterile, sterilized, or post-menopausal? Shoud the government ban that, too?

Ha! Funny girl. The discussion has taken yet another sick turn since you last posted, eh, Carol. Keep singing! There are better things to do in life than discuss close relatives and animals marrying each other. Take the high road! We all clearly have too much time on our hands when we should be exercising.

"Another sick turn?" How very judgmental of you. How can you possibly stand in judgment of what others choose to do of their own free will? If a woman falls in love with her brother and they're both consenting adults -- and I'll take out the knee-jerk reaction and stipulate that she's post-menopausal so there's no chance of having children -- why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? Why is saying that they're sick OK? Who are you to define the high road?

Much like I said in my previous post, if she feels that is "sick" then that is her opinion and she has every right to feel that way. I also personally think that is "weird". However, just because she or I feel that way, doesn't mean you or anyone else has to feel that way. That is the beauty of being an American, we have the right to feel however we want and the right to express that opinion. I don't think we have control over what we feel, we only have control over the way we express those feelings.

The "another sick turn" was about legalizing marriages between people and animals. Read sentence that follows that. Ggive me a break!

Much like I said in my previous post, if she feels that is "sick" then that is her opinion and she has every right to feel that way. I also personally think that is "weird". However, just because she or I feel that way, doesn't mean you or anyone else has to feel that way. That is the beauty of being an American, we have the right to feel however we want and the right to express that opinion. I don't think we have control over what we feel, we only have control over the way we express those feelings.

DING DING DING! I think we have a winner!!!!!

I feel the standard of marriage should be maintained as one man and one woman. I am making my decision based on my opinion.

Others feel the standard of marriage should be extended to one man with one man, or one woman with one woman. They are making that decision based on their opinions.

Yet others feel the standard of marriage should be extended to one man with multiple women, as well as inter-familial relations (so long as they're adult and consensual) and other odd pairings. They are making that decision based on their opinions.

You cannot logically argue that gay marriage should be legalized without also holding that every other type of adult, consensual union should also be legalized. To believe anything else is arbitrary, presumptous, and judgmental.

I think my work is done here.

You cannot logically argue that gay marriage should be legalized without also holding that every other type of adult, consensual union should also be legalized.

I think that is what everyone else has been trying to get at. The key words are adult and consensual. A child is not an adult. An animal cannot consent. Therefore, those arguements have no bearing on the discussion. People have been trying to say that even if it squicks them (e.g., incest), as long as the two parties are both adults and are both consenting, there isn't any reason to not allow them to enter into a legal union.

You cannot logically argue that gay marriage should be legalized without also holding that every other type of adult, consensual union should also be legalized. To believe anything else is arbitrary, presumptous, and judgmental.

I hope I for one, have made it clear that I do argue that all adult consenual unions should be legal. I hope I've not said anything to the contrary.

Gay marriage: yes!

Polygamy (consenting adults only): yes!

Polyamory: yes! (pretty much the same as polygamy)

Close relatives marrying: yes! (but ew)

People and animals: NO!

Children of any sort: NO!

Ok, that should make it clear I hope!

I think that is what everyone else has been trying to get at. The key words are adult and consensual. A child is not an adult. An animal cannot consent. Therefore, those arguements have no bearing on the discussion. People have been trying to say that even if it squicks them (e.g., incest), as long as the two parties are both adults and are both consenting, there isn't any reason to not allow them to enter into a legal union.

I have to agree. For such a long time, people thought the idea of a black man marrying a white woman was about as bad as the dolphin thing. It was illegal in Texas until 1967. In retrospect, we now think that the idea of outlawing interracial marriage is simply ludicrous. Someday we will look back and think the same thing about gay marriage.

Please everyone, get out there and ROCK THE VOTE today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it is arrogant of a person, or group of people to automatically assume that what they believe is the only right way and everyone else should bow down to their beliefs or be persecuted. We were founded first and foremost on freedom. Therefore, as long as we are not harming another human being in our beliefs, we should be allowed to practice those beliefs freely.

I don't know if this makes sense or not, but I feel better having added my two cents.

Your whole post made perfect sense! Very nicely said.:clap2:

You cannot logically argue that gay marriage should be legalized without also holding that every other type of adult, consensual union should also be legalized. To believe anything else is arbitrary, presumptous, and judgmental.

What is the logical argument to not allow gay marriage?

Yes please, WITH OUT GOD, please show me a logical argument for why Gay marriage should not be allowed.

Is it possible to give me a logical argument with out Him invovled?

The argument as it stands right now is , "no cause God said so".

For our constitution to stand, this is unacceptable.

While I am saddend that His Law can not rule us, I am unbelievably happy that the rules of worship of Satan worshippers are not inforced (would chaos insue?), the rules of Muslim worshippers are inforced (as a woman, I'll be danged if I have to listen with out question to a man for anything), the rules of certain Christian sects that believe that medicine is the "devil" and God will cure you are not inforced (mm, I like my penicillin).

You CAN NOT make a leap from gay marriage to animal marriage OR to polygamy.

Our taxes, insurance and other legal precedents are based on a two party contract system. Think about that, hard.

Off on another tangent:

For the most part, inter-family marriages are prohibited due to genetic malformations double each time family memebers inter-marry. (i.e., the "blue people" in Kentucky and hemophiliacs in the royal family) Its fact and very easy to trace. I will agree that prohibiting people from getting married JUST based on the possiblities that genetic malformations is wrong. Why? As a woman ages, her eggs get old and the increase of Downs skyrockets. Should two people from differnt families who both have the sickle cell trait be barred from being married? No, that is an infringements of the right to pursue happiness.

"Give me liberty or give me death"

For the most part, inter-family marriages are prohibited due to genetic malformations double each time family memebers inter-marry. (i.e., the "blue people" in Kentucky and hemophiliacs in the royal family) Its fact and very easy to trace. I will agree that prohibiting people from getting married JUST based on the possiblities that genetic malformations is wrong. Why? As a woman ages, her eggs get old and the increase of Downs skyrockets. Should two people from differnt families who both have the sickle cell trait be barred from being married? No, that is an infringements of the right to pursue happiness.

"Give me liberty or give me death"

I agree. I would HOPE that people would have enough sense not to marry their sisters, or at least not to have children with them, but to legislate stupidity is....well, a losing battle. Are we going to legally prohibit drug addicted, alcoholic women from marrying and delivering brain-damaged babies? I doubt it. My oldest son and his wife are not related, yet their first child was born with Hirschsprung's Disease, a rare birth defect that is genetic, and which never shows up unless both parents carry the recessive gene for HD. Should they have been denied by law the right to choose to have more children? (They had a second child, by the way, and he does not have HD.)

People should be entitled to choose their marital status, and that includes WHO they marry, as long as both are consenting adults.

Every state in the union allows convicted criminals to marry, even though the marriage will never be consumated. That does not fit the mold of "traditional marriage", yet it's not illegal. I think it's a shame that violent offenders are given more consideration than productive, tax-paying citizens.