Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

On what do you base that? Why should your basis for that statement be made into law?

First, no one wants to destroy heterosexual marriage, so nothing would be "thrown away" if gay marriage were legalized. There would be a different definition, but it would still include heterosexual couples. Second, you are no doubt thinking of the purpose of marriage. Asking what the government's policy on the purpose of marriage should be is asking the wrong question. Why should the government define marriage when no one's rights are infringed upon?
Even if you think that homosexuality is immoral, I assure you that many heterosexual unions are entered for all of the wrong reasons, but it certainly isn't the government's place to forbid marriages between shallow people (with the government defining the "proper" reasons for marriage). Churches may choose to recognize or not to recognize gay couples, but the government has no ethical right to recognize some marriages but not others so long as all concerned are consenting adults. I make a caveat for incestuous marriages because of the harm done to children conceived through incest. Other than that, though, please explain why marriage is the government's business in the first place.
Now granted, until and unless homosexuality can be proven to be inborn, gay rights issues are states' rights (10th Amendment) issues, but on a state level I support getting the government out of marriage in nearly all circumstances. I think that sexual orientation is inborn. I know that I could not be attracted to a man, so I doubt that a gay man could be attracted to a woman. If and when science establishes what most of us already know- i.e. that sexual orientation is inborn- gay rights will become, on a Constitutional level, a 14th Amendment matter of equality, thus making un-Constitutional any inferior legal status for homosexuals. Until then, I reluctantly leave the issue to the states despite the frequent decisions of voters to ban gay marriage state-by-state.

Originally Posted by killpie";p=&quot

oooooh, wrong word. did you mean too?

Originally Posted by gadzooks";p=&quot

You want the Govt. out of nearly all marriages. O.K. Then what about the people who have true love for their dog, shouldn't they get govt. assistance in the tax system for their spousal canine and all other benefits a married couple enjoys?(sometime it is not all about sex). True love ! It's all good..

Originally Posted by gadzooks";p=&quot

Let's not even get into polygamy, you have to let a man have as many wives as he wants. He could receive dependent status for all 100 of his wives. While the taxpayers foot the bills.

Originally Posted by gadzooks";p=&quot

Marriage is the govt.'s business because we give special benefits to married couples. There is no other reason for them to be legally married. They can speak vows to themselves if they like,but they will receive no govt. benefits.

Originally Posted by gadzooks";p=&quot

JavaBlack:

Whether you like it or not there is still a right and wrong (as it has been since the beginning)

Gay people do not need the govt. blessing to get married. They can say their vows anyplace as far as i'm concerned and love each other any way they choose. The benefits of marriage are not applied to them and won't be, and shouldn't be, in the near future. I do not give up the ghost on anything.
Only four out of 100 senators are for legalizing same-sex marriages. Your out of luck.

Benefits for married men and women on:

joint income tax returns
family partnerships that can divde business income
non-citizen spousal benefits
exemption from estate taxes
exemption from gift taxes
life estate trusts
social security
medicare
disability benefits
benefits for veterns spouses

other benefits:

retirement
child support
family health rates
family tuition discounts


I'm sure there are more.
Your right, animals don't have human rights under law. But that doesn't mean that they CAN'T have them. Remember.... IT'S ALL GOOD !!!