Animals can't enter into contracts, and getting a marriage license is a contract. Multiple-partner relationships are not "illegitimate" except according to one's personal tastes, but the issuance of a marriage license to a 3-person group or whatever defeats the purpose of the license in the first place: simplifying inheritance, designating one person as your unequicoval caretaker and person of responsibility in the event you are incapacitated so there's not a big messy fight over it that the Courts have to solve (see: Teri Schiavo).

The government has no legitimate reason not to issue marriage licenses to adult, sane, taxpaying citizens who are mature enough to make decisions for themselves, regardless of what genitalia they have. There are legitimate reasons why the marriage license contract cannot be applicable to animals and polygamist groups, so the slippery slope argument is BS.

Oh how I wish how one debate on this issue could occur without having to stumble through this BS argument.

I agree but I don't think that people who don't speak the same language should be able to get married.

I think it's sexual descrimination when they don't let people of the same gender get married.

I agree but I don't think that people who don't speak the same language should be able to get married.

Que? :confused:

How could someone have a good marriage if they can't communicate with their spouse? Unless they hire a translator to follow them around every where. Seems to me like a lot of problems could happen.

Well that's a choice for adults to make.

Besides sexual attraction, it doesn't look like there is much to a relationship like that. I just don't see how a relationship would work between to people who can't even talk to eachother.

I agree. But there are plenty of people who "just don't see" how two men can actually love each other. But that's a reason to personally disapprove of the union if you're going to, not to use the power of the government to intervene and say, "no, you can't do this."

Well there's a big difference between physical attributes and a lingual barrier.

There is indeed. But adults should still be free to make a dumb choice if they want.

I know gays who consider it nothing but a law designed to make hustlers and con artists who prey on old gay men rich, so it's probably not a good idea to assume all homosexuals are in favor of these laws as they're now worded. See lawsuits in the aftermath of Liberace's death for examples.

Their view is they don't need society's 'approval', they've been 'illegal' for decades, and have been doing fine; they have no use for 'legitimacy' from the world at large. They're what would be considered 'hippies' these days, of course, and see that most of those making a big issue of it are usually the middle and upper class types who vote Republican most of the time and suck up to the rich, anyway; the fashion magnates, interior decorators, art and antique dealers, salesmen, et al, and the wannabees that trail around after them.

There isn't really much of a 'gay community' in their opinion, just a lot of callow, amoral cretins who want to be 'courtiers' to the rich and famous, with little concern for anyone or anything else.

Look, its the word marriage, it has to be protected. Two men can be in love, just like two women, and they can have a happy, wonderful life. The government issues licenses, that is correct. But this is for other reasons, besides rights, they use licenses for reasons like statistics, and being married has legal repercussions. Why is this an issue, legalities, Marriage is Sacred. So I think, the President is correct in defending a word, and keeping its corrected definition. Lets use a term like Gay Union, and then make all companies, hospitals etc except this as being married.

I agree but I don't think that people who don't speak the same language should be able to get married.


But what if I paid good money for a Russian bride? Who's going to refund me that?

Look, its the word marriage, it has to be protected. Two men can be in love, just like two women, and they can have a happy, wonderful life. The government issues licenses, that is correct. But this is for other reasons, besides rights, they use licenses for reasons like statistics, and being married has legal repercussions. Why is this an issue, legalities, Marriage is Sacred. So I think, the President is correct in defending a word, and keeping its corrected definition. Lets use a term like Gay Union, and then make all companies, hospitals etc except this as being married.

Words don't need to be defended. They don't care what happens one way or another.
It's more like, for some reason I don't understand, you think your inner ideas of what constitutes marriage will be somehow diminshed of other people are allowed to think and act differently.
Your concept of marriage will continue to be valid no matter what groups are allowed to marry each other. The freedom of others doesn't diminsh you.

Words don't need to be defended. They don't care what happens one way or another.
It's more like, for some reason I don't understand, you think your inner ideas of what constitutes marriage will be somehow diminshed of other people are allowed to think and act differently.
Your concept of marriage will continue to be valid no matter what groups are allowed to marry each other. The freedom of others doesn't diminsh you.

That's not quite true. Marriage brings with it a stamp of legitimacy and the force of law. If a homeowner wants to rent out a room in their home, but only wants singles or married couples, a gay "married" couple could force their way in where they would normally be denied. Redefining marriage to include gays certainly impacts society.

Animals can't enter into contracts, and getting a marriage license is a contract. Multiple-partner relationships are not "illegitimate" except according to one's personal tastes, but the issuance of a marriage license to a 3-person group or whatever defeats the purpose of the license in the first place: simplifying inheritance, designating one person as your unequicoval caretaker and person of responsibility in the event you are incapacitated so there's not a big messy fight over it that the Courts have to solve (see: Teri Schiavo).

The government has no legitimate reason not to issue marriage licenses to adult, sane, taxpaying citizens who are mature enough to make decisions for themselves, regardless of what genitalia they have. There are legitimate reasons why the marriage license contract cannot be applicable to animals and polygamist groups, so the slippery slope argument is BS.

Oh how I wish how one debate on this issue could occur without having to stumble through this BS argument.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's leave the multiple partner marriages out of this for a moment. It's an arbitrary decision, and in no way lends credence to your claiming BS. How do you feel about siblings getting married? If you don't like it, why not? Don't try to bring children into it, because the same argument could be applied to drug users, and I dont' see a groundswell of support for the idea of the government requiring random drug tests for pregnant women.

That's not quite true. Marriage brings with it a stamp of legitimacy and the force of law. If a homeowner wants to rent out a room in their home, but only wants singles or married couples, a gay "married" couple could force their way in where they would normally be denied. Redefining marriage to include gays certainly impacts society.
I think your example isn't really an argument against gay marriage though. No homeowner is going to be forced to house a gay couple just because gay marriage is allowed. The two issues aren't even related.
Yes, if gay marriage is allowed it will affect society without a doubt. I am simply saying that the instiutions which already exist today won't crumble into oblivion because some gay guys get hitched.
To quote Jon Stewart from a Daily Show episode a week or so ago, "50% of marriages don't end in divorce because of gayness".