Nope in the US they can get married in Mass. They can also get married in Canada, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands and South Africa.

Your right, other places like here in the UK have legal unions but that union is identical in every sense to a civil marriage and is recognised across the land.

All the gay people I've spoken to here are fine with that.

personally, i dont think that government should dictate who can get married to who. im not even in favor of age limitations. there needs to be more consistency in our government. either make it all legal, make it all illegal, or dont take a position on it. personally, im in favor of the ladder.

OK I think I agree. So as long as heterosexual couples receive benefits and are required to live up to certain responsibilities (spousal support etc.) then homosexual people should receive the exact same treatment?

Ideally though you'd rather people to did this through private contractual agreement. What about states that have enacted constitutional ammendments which void such private contracts?

i dont like that idea. id rather see that government takes no position on it. id also like to see the idea of privacy removed when it refers to contracts. i think privacy is only valid when it concerns yourself. once you take part in society, such as a contract, youre taking part in a public affair. htats why i dont believe in family privacy, a family is not one entity. if it were, then voting should be limited to one vote per family.

i know my opinions are unorthodox, but theyre consistent. i believe consistency is more important then agreement.

I only meant private as opposed to government contract e.g. a marriage license.

yeah i figured. i just take it a step forward lol.

If you can't see the implications, then nevermind that part. It wasn't important.
Tax code applies to everyone, just like marriage code applies to everyone. By your logic (and it is yours), it must be inherently non-discriminatory.

And since you didn't answer my question, I'll ask it again. Would a ban on having sex with a person of the same gender be discriminatory? If so, then how is this different than the ban on same sex marriage? If not, then something that negatively affects every gay person and 0.00001% of straight people can not be discriminatory by your definition, in which case your definition is pretty much useless, and I'll find a new word that carries some meaning to use with you.

yes, it should be non discriminatory. thats why the current marriage code is none discriminatory. everyone can get married. the law isnt the problem, its the definition of marriage. thats why im in favor of the government not taking part in marriage at all.

it depends how the wording was stated. if it applied to anyone, regardless of sex then it would be non discriminatory. if it applied to only gays or only straights, then it would be discriminatory.

a ban on same sex marriage is non discriminatory if it applies to everyone. however im not in favor of such ban.

its not my definition, its the accepted deffinition. also, taking in account the affect of it on any sexual orientation, gay or straight, would be discriminatory. like i said, its not the governments business what you do. as far as im concerned, as long as youre not hurting anyone by an action, then it should be allowed.

If it was worded as I worded it.

Also, I'll try this again. If a tax on income over one million dollars is discriminatory, then so is a ban on gay marriage. Is it discriminatory?

then no because you didnt specify it to any single group, therefore it affects everyone equally.


no. anyone can become a millionaire therefore it applies to everyone since everyone has the chance.