I try not to because I am hetro,but I suppose the same apply's to my gay friends.

Who is god?

are you in favor of marriage between a human and a horse? just a question. I'm curious to know the answer.

__________________
I crave therefore I am and that is all I ever feel
I hoped you'd understand, One love, One pain, One enemy
I toast to misery, as I dig into the devil's bone
And for eternity the pain became me
Unholy me alone...

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

I'm a Tarte! What! You Want Somma This?

colt or filly?

What and live in sin?

And I'm sure some are curious to why someone will want to marry another man or woman.


We don't allow things to happen because we understand them.
We allow them because there's nothing inheritly wrong with them.


I find it hysterical how the people who were so quick to judge me being prolife are now in a corner shivvering at the thought of polygamus, animal, and children relations...


Hell, I'd even allow necrophylia. A couple of my girlfriends asked if I'd be okay with them screwing my corpse and I said why not? I'm (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dead. It's not like I'm going to know lol!

Just polygamy. Animals and children can't give consent.

You dont think they might be implying that they will get more "action" from your stiffend corpse than they are getting now?

Read my other post in this thread and you will get my answer (the first post I made). May I ask why you support marriage in its current form? I'm curious to know the answer.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

The problem with the marriage debate is that there are two completely different things that are ambiguously referred to by the word "marriage". Marriage in the traditional sense is a personal promise of commitment and fidelity between two people, perhaps one that is announced to and accepted by the community/family. "Marriage" in the legal sense is just a legal contract recognized by the government for certain benefits.

Since marriage is traditionally a strictly social construct, not a legal one, I think that "marriage" is a poor term for the legal contract, precisely because of this conflict which has arisen on the issue. Legal "marriage" shouldn't even necessarily correlate with true marriage. Being legally "married" to someone doesn't imply that you love each other, have sex with one another, or even plan to live together. And being truely married does not imply the government even knows about it.

I think that one's church or community should offer marriages in their own way. Whether gays should be allowed to be married is completely up to their community, faith, and/or themselves, not the government. True marriage is not done for the sake of government benefits, but for the sake of being accepted by one's community. If a religion supports it, children can marry, in this traditional sense (though no popular religions I am aware of support this).

Now, the government's "marriage" contract should be a completely separate mechanism. Personally, I don't have anything against homosexual or polygamous legal "marriages". Such contracts should be available, indiscriminately, between any consenting adult citizens of the country (or if the country supports international marriage, then citizens of supported countries as well). This means animals and children are excluded in the US.

If you separate legal "marriage" and traditional marriage, the religious debate over the validity of gay marriage simply ceases to exist. Marriage in the traditional sense is defined by the religion, and thus they can choose not to bestow marriage upon homosexuals. However that should not stop them from gaining the legal benefits of a so-called "marriage" contract, which again, I think should be renamed to separate it from the social/religious construct.