Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

Strange thing prejudices....I have absolutely nothing against seeing two women kissing eachother...or even doing more serious stuff

This is in direct accordance to David Chappelle's One Penis Per Fantasy Theorum. Do some studying! :D

OK, now I quit replying because I couldn't handle the stress anymore. I've gone back through now and read most of the replies.
[QUOTE=Mattboy_Slim]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?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Spectra] I see the point with the sister and dog, but come on, we both know those examples are way off. [/QUOTE]

No, I think my examples are perfect. Explain to me why you think my examples are so off. I understand and agree to the fact that gay sex is different than rape, as you have 2 consenting adults, but by your same argument, the brother and sister wanting to marry are both consenting adults, why should they not be allowed to marry?

==================

[quote=fig]so we have our "enlightened" culture that accepts homosexuality. in these hyper-accelerated times (which i don't necessarily agree with when you look at philosophy and other fields that evolved over thousands of years, its simply a different type of knowledge) where do you draw the line? what if over the next 20 years transgenerational or incestual relationships become more accepted? bestiality? polygamy? its not hurting anyone, right? do we continue to redefine marriage to fit the trends of society to make sure the minority is being accounted for?[/quote]
Fig said that perfectly, so I'll quote it for reference.

=================

[quote=fig]no one is taking away anything from anyone, they're simply not getting something that someone else has. why? because its been done that way for thousands of years for one, and a small group wants to redefine that definition. no one has more rights than anyone, but there's no logical reason to be treated exactly the same as someone else when you're doing something entirely different.[/quote]
Fig covered my ass when I wasn't here. Pat on the back to Fig for stating something perfectly again.

=============

[quote=fig]btw, i'm curious where marriage originated from if it wasn't in the jewish culture for whoever mentioned marriage predating biblical texts.[/quote]
Sorry Fig, I didn't look it up right quick, but I vaguely recall going over this question in a college Sociology class. I believe that the ancient Mesopotamians, Babylonians, and even the Australian Bushmen practiced marriage.
OK, I went and found a link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm
And note, that's from the Catholic Church, an organization who thinks that they invented the idea of everything.

===========

From what I can see, it looks like we have two different groups against gay marriage. One group is against the idea for many reasons along with not wanting to grant them the financial benefits. The other group says to let them have the financial benefits.

I'm with the group that says to let them have the financial benefits. If my insurance rates go up because of that though, my thoughts will change quickly. I won't pay money just to allow gays to get married. I don't believe that will be the case though.

My main argument against gay marriage is the fact that I don't want to change something because a very small group of people is being left out. This very small group amounts to about 1% of the population. Well I would venture to bet that there are no other groups out there that small have gotten something that they wanted simply because they felt they deserved some priviledge.

I'm not going to compromise the meaning of my marriage for something that less than 1% of the population wants. Marriage is in place for the producing of children, whether or not that happens all the time is of course not the point, as many couples can not have children of their own, but still adopt.

I'll say this again, it has nothing to do with religion. The religious right supports this more frequently, as they obviously value their marriages more than the non-religious left. I'll go back to my point that the idea of marriage predates religion, though the religious for the most part are the ones who desire to uphold the values of marriage.

EDIT:
I want to start getting my social security benefits now, I shouldn't have to wait until I'm 64 (or whatever the age is this year). This isn't hurting anyone, and it's something that I want. Why should the government stop me from getting something that I want? Those of you who think I shouldn't have these financial benefits are being prejudiced and close-minded.

I, too, had to get out of this thread for a few days, but, now, I'm back, (and, I, brought alot of commas, see?)

mattboy and I usually agree on stuff. Usually...

My main argument against gay marriage is the fact that I don't want to change something because a very small group of people is being left out. This very small group amounts to about 1% of the population. Well I would venture to bet that there are no other groups out there that small have gotten something that they wanted simply because they felt they deserved some priviledge.

I can think of a couple small groups that thought they deserved some priveledge: African Americans and Women.

Read this. It's long, but it is really good.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2004/03/04/feature.html

Well women are far from a minority, and in both of these cases, the majority believed that they deserved the same rights as white males. I'm not saying that just because the majority agrees on something that they are right, but I share the opionions of the majority, so I'm taking advantage of that.

I started to read that article, but it's really long and it's 11:30 PM, so I'll have to finish it tomorrow.