Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

@ Infamous

Are you frightened that everyone will turn gay, under some gay spell that will spread to the whole of humanity? If your parents are gay, will you be? Get a check on reality and spread your bigotry through some form of knowledge on the subject, rather than a misinformed, ill-educated opinion.

The deplorable and glib response of Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve is both ignorant and incredibly stupid at best. Are you afraid that you will be forced to be gay and that somehow your desires will alter to fancying and desiring men? Do you suppose that 'good hetro men' like yourself will suddenly be overcome with a feeling of "brotherly love"? If you are not going to convert and society has through the ages managed to regulate itself and not become and extinction in action, why do you suppose that people are suddenly going to jump on the 'gay badwagon' (in-itself an offensive term)

I can also assure you that it is not "another topic...." your bigotry would be as well expressed here as another thread. If you feel I am lambasting you without cause, feel free to respond with a suitable reply, I welcome debate on this subject.

I'll throw my 2 cents in without reading many of the long posts above.

First question: Do you think I should be legally able to marry my sister?
Second question: Do you think I should be legally able to marry my dog?

Your answers to both I would hope would be "No". But why not? I love my sister, I love my dog, I should be able to marry whomever I want, right?

Regardless of what people might say, this has NOTHING to do with religion. The idea of marriage has been around far longer than the Christian religion, longer than the Jewish religion, longer than I'd venture to say than any religion. Marriage is celebrated across the world, in most cultures, in most religions.

New paragraph for this thought: For those who think the government should not get involved don't know enough about marriage. Marriage is not inherently a religious celebration, it's simply a public ceremony OFTEN celebrated in a church in a religious way. You can get married at the courthouse, yes, the courthouse, without a priest, by a Justice of the Peace. Marriage is a public institution, not a private religious 'thing'. Marriage is already supported by the government, so the government should step in and protect the institution that marriage is.

I honestly don't care if two gay people want to be together, get a legal "Civil Union", get the same benefits as married couples get, hell, they can even call it a marriage, but the federal government cannot support gay marriage.

Spectra said that to allow gay marriage would be to 'evolve', but how can you evolve if you cannot procreate?

OK, fine, let the American public vote. That's the democratic way, let's all take a vote. Numerous polls have confirmed that the majority (usually about 60%) of Americans are against gay marriage.

Legislating morality is a fool's game, particularly in a country which was founded largely on a wish for freedom from religious persecution.

For someone who claims a moral high ground to call someone else immoral because they are homosexual reveals much more about the the person making the judgement than it does about those they judge.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Spectra said that to allow gay marriage would be to 'evolve', but how can you evolve if you cannot procreate?[/QUOTE]

You are simplifying things too much. Not every marriage results in procreation. Allowing gay marriage will not eventually lead to the eradication of hetero couples. People will still be out having children. Why can't a certain group be acknowledged and accepted rather than be segregated into a taboo group. I see the point with the sister and dog, but come on, we both know those examples are way off. We need tolerance. By pointing fingers and shunning people will not solve "the problem". Gay people wont eventually go: "Hey, the straights aren't paying attention to us or letting us do our thing, I guess its time to give up this gay lifestyle and go straight." It's not an issue that is easily swept under the carpet. That will only lead to more problems.

Again I ask, what has a homosexual ever done to anyone? (please refer to previous post for more comedic question. )

Listen, most people are completely missing the point. Nobody is saying that gay people shouldn't be together, that's not it at all. It's MARRIAGE. Marriage is defined as the joining of a man and woman. Why should we have to change that definition because a small group thinks so? This has nothing to do about equality, this has nothing to do with human rights, it's about protecting the definition of marriage. Those who don't understand this aren't married or don't take their marriage seriously.

Like I said before, call it whatever the heck you want, but don't demand that the entire world change because you want something. I don't understand why so many people are trying to appease this, I'll say it a 1000 times, small group of people who want to change the definition of something that has been around since the DAWN OF MAN!!!??

So everything is enshrined?

No, but marriage should be.

How big does a "group" have to be before they can make a difference? I would guess that nearly half the population in North America are women. Around there more or less right? Now, this "group" finally changed the structure of voting. That definition has been changed. Men and women above a certain age are allowed to vote if they are legal citizens. That would have been changed in the Constitution. How about the black "group". They now have civil rights. The definition of a "free citizen" would have have been changed right there. How about divorce. That was illegal at one time too. I'm not sure if it was in North America, but none the less...

Everything changes, this includes marriage. If it has been around since the dawn of man, I would imagine that you can no longer pull your woman by her hair and beat her if she was out of line. A person is kidding themselves if they believe that the first written rules of marriage are still around today. I believe that the rules have been changed since the good ol' dark age.

How can the government deny a group their wish if it does not infringe on anyone else's privacy or freedom?

But it doesn't matter. Gay marriage will eventually become legal in the entire nation. Everytime close-minded people try to oppress a group they fail eventually. You can't deny a group their rights forever.

Oh, and did anyone know Dick Cheney's daughter is openly gay even as her father supports anti-gay marriage bills? www.dearmary.com

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Listen, most people are completely missing the point. Nobody is saying that gay people shouldn't be together, that's not it at all. It's MARRIAGE. Marriage is defined as the joining of a man and woman. Why should we have to change that definition because a small group thinks so? This has nothing to do about equality, this has nothing to do with human rights, it's about protecting the definition of marriage. Those who don't understand this aren't married or don't take their marriage seriously.

Like I said before, call it whatever the heck you want, but don't demand that the entire world change because you want something. I don't understand why so many people are trying to appease this, I'll say it a 1000 times, small group of people who want to change the definition of something that has been around since the DAWN OF MAN!!!??[/QUOTE]

Not taking into account the “small majority” of peoples needs is completely un democratic. Lets not talk about the whole world, lets talk about the U.S which is suppose to be the prime example of tolerance. Gays aren’t asking the whole world to change, they’re expecting their government to adapt to peoples needs. Love is a freaking need regardless of what sex the human being is.

I don’t think a lot of people take into account that gay people don’t choose to be gay. If people have such a huge problem calling a union between gay people a marriage then call it a union. Gay people should be allowed to be recognized as “partners” and given the same rights as married couples.