70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[JediKooter]

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

I said it in the Prop 8 thread and I'll say it here: Since the people who are holding so dearly and trying to protect 'traditional marriage', 'only man & woman marriage' and can't play fairly, then the United States needs to make ALL marriages null and void and only recognize civil unions.

If it's god that you are worried about, I'm sure you will have no problems finding a church that will 'marry' you. After all, it's just a word...

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Joey Harrington is a Hall of Fame quarterback - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about all his interceptions and inaccuracy.

As long as you believe that to be true, then it is! That's the same magic some of these other people apply to far more important issues, so certainly it would work for football too.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure that everyone is thinking this while no one is asking it. Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

I said it in the Prop 8 thread and I'll say it here: Since the people who are holding so dearly and trying to protect 'traditional marriage', 'only man & woman marriage' and can't play fairly, then the United States needs to make ALL marriages null and void and only recognize civil unions.

If it's god that you are worried about, I'm sure you will have no problems finding a church that will 'marry' you. After all, it's just a word...

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

Isn't this the "other thing" that the nation has currently moved on to?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

[RendeR]

This is what disgusts me most about religion, the effect it has on the human brain. it turns rational thinking thoughtful people into ignorant sheep who feel the need to force their belief on everyone else. (Yes there are those who don't, thats not the isssue)

Religious beliefs are for every individual to choose for themselves. No one else has the RIGHT to force everyone to folloow the same beliefs they do based on their religion.

This Prop 8 business is pure and simple religious dogma being force fed to an entire state's population. Why? because it makes them feel special, important and powerful. it keeps citizens of their state who believe differently than they do from having the same rights as everyone else.

Its Racism, its anti-semitism, its profiling, it is all the things we as a general populace label as wrong and inherintly evil.

And no matter the prop 8 vote, it won't last. Conservative ignorance and bigotry be damned, in time such stupidity will be shed by human beings as a whole.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Isn't this the "other thing" that the nation has currently moved on to?

Yes, they lost on interacial marriage, they lost on segregation, they lost on abortion, they had to grasp at something to rail against the storm for, but they will move on when they inevitably fail on this as well.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is what disgusts me most about religion, the effect it has on the human brain. it turns rational thinking thoughtful people into ignorant sheep who feel the need to force their belief on everyone else. (Yes there are those who don't, thats not the isssue)

Religious beliefs are for every individual to choose for themselves. No one else has the RIGHT to force everyone to folloow the same beliefs they do based on their religion.

This Prop 8 business is pure and simple religious dogma being force fed to an entire state's population. Why? because it makes them feel special, important and powerful. it keeps citizens of their state who believe differently than they do from having the same rights as everyone else.

Its Racism, its anti-semitism, its profiling, it is all the things we as a general populace label as wrong and inherintly evil.

And no matter the prop 8 vote, it won't last. Conservative ignorance and bigotry be damned, in time such stupidity will be shed by human beings as a whole.

OH SHIT MORALITY POPE IN THE HOUSE!

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

And here comes the extreme well if A then Z analogies that are oh so realistic.

A 12 yr old isn't an adult and does not legally have the rights of an adult. You're comparing apples to goat shit and thinking the smell makes you right? Totally incompatible analogy.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Subby

OH SHIT MORALITY POPE IN THE HOUSE!

Go fuck yourself subby.

Actually, if you think the Constitution is the Morality pope then you may be right. We are guarenteed the freedom of religion. That guarentee promises us that we shall not be oppressed due to our religious choices. Prop 8 is PRECISELY that oppression. The will of the Christian right forcing its religious dogma upon the populace as a whole.

Go fuck yourself anyway just, cause...

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

Absurd. I won't speak for JediKooter, but most people are referring to consenting adults in these discussions.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Go fuck yourself subby.

That was actually outlawed by Proposition 8.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Go fuck yourself subby.

Actually, if you think the Constitution is the Morality pope then you may be right. We are guarenteed the freedom of religion. That guarentee promises us that we shall not be oppressed due to our religious choices. Prop 8 is PRECISELY that oppression. The will of the Christian right forcing its religious dogma upon the populace as a whole.

Go fuck yourself anyway just, cause...

Lighten up morality pope!

More pirates, less hostility!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RendeR

And here comes the extreme well if A then Z analogies that are oh so realistic.

A 12 yr old isn't an adult and does not legally have the rights of an adult. You're comparing apples to goat shit and thinking the smell makes you right? Totally incompatible analogy.

It's not an analogy. I'm not comparing anything. Supposedly you support the "persuit" of happiness and you're showing a very closed mind when you support that "EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life." What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?

[Autumn]

People refer to the "institution of marriage" as if it was some clear, concrete set thing, not a cultural and historical creation. If people want to discuss marriage as set in the Christian Bible, yes, that has a particular character. But otherwise we are talking about an amorphous thing created by society, not something that can be referred to like a law of physics. So telling us "marriage clearly is a relation between a man and a woman" is not authoritative in the least. You clearly have to back up your point with references to what is backing up your claim other than the weight of tradition.

"Voters" used to be men of a certain age who owned property. I think that's a close analogy to "marriage" in the sense that it is a role/function created and defined by society, and which we get to redefine as we wish. Telling us that there's no argument, marriage is already defined, is a faulty approach.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by digamma

That was actually outlawed by Proposition 8.

Well played sir =)

Originally Posted by Subby

Lighten up morality pope!

More pirates, less hostility!

but thats just the point subby, as much as I'd love to let this wash off and padle away like the rest of the ducks I just can't. This is bigotry being legislated INTO a states legal system. We might as well strike down laws against slavery, segregation and inter-racial relationships on any level. This is exactly the same ignorance. Its taken 100+ years for the minority races in this country to gain the appearance at least of equality under the law. Now with one fell swopp California is trying to revert to 50 years ago and paint it like its a good thing.

its infuriating.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

It's not an analogy. I'm not comparing anything. Supposedly you support the "persuit" of happiness and you're showing a very closed mind when you support that "EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life." What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?

Because based on this society consenting ADULTS can live and choose as they see fit (until prop 8 anyway) a CHILD cannot do so and therefore cannot consent or choose to marry. its a completely different discussion. You're making a completely fallicitous argument for the sake of arguing instead of actually trying to discuss the topic at hand.

We're not discusing children and adults, we're not discussing multiple adults beyond the grand total of TWO for the legal rights and privilages afforded a married couple.

When and IF a 12 yr old is considered a consenting adult then you can bring up your argument. Till then make one that relates to the topic at hand.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Autumn

People refer to the "institution of marriage" as if it was some clear, concrete set thing, not a cultural and historical creation. If people want to discuss marriage as set in the Christian Bible, yes, that has a particular character. But otherwise we are talking about an amorphous thing created by society, not something that can be referred to like a law of physics. So telling us "marriage clearly is a relation between a man and a woman" is not authoritative in the least. You clearly have to back up your point with references to what is backing up your claim other than the weight of tradition.

"Voters" used to be men of a certain age who owned property. I think that's a close analogy to "marriage" in the sense that it is a role/function created and defined by society, and which we get to redefine as we wish. Telling us that there's no argument, marriage is already defined, is a faulty approach.

very well stated, good points.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

It's not an analogy. I'm not comparing anything. Supposedly you support the "persuit" of happiness and you're showing a very closed mind when you support that "EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life." What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?

Wow. If you don't understand the difference between the actions between to consenting adults and the actions between an adult and a 12 year old child, then... I don't know.

Good luck with yourself.

[lordscarlet]

It wasn't too long ago that the idea that a wife would choose her husband or a couple would marry for love was not "traditional."

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What harm is it to you if underage marriages are allowed?

Because the underage party isn't in a position to decide what is and isn't harmful. I'm shocked anybody wouldn't be able to make the distinction.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Because based on this society consenting ADULTS can live and choose as they see fit (until prop 8 anyway) a CHILD cannot do so and therefore cannot consent or choose to marry. its a completely different discussion. You're making a completely fallicitous argument for the sake of arguing instead of actually trying to discuss the topic at hand.

We're not discusing children and adults, we're not discussing multiple adults beyond the grand total of TWO for the legal rights and privilages afforded a married couple.

When and IF a 12 yr old is considered a consenting adult then you can bring up your argument. Till then make one that relates to the topic at hand.

Being a consenting adult is a legal definition. If you agree (which you did five times over) with the statement that

regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life

then don't hide behind a legislation that defines what an adult is.

[timmynausea]

At first I thought RA was just playing devil's advocate. Now I'm pretty sure he actually wants to marry a 12 year old girl.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

then don't hide behind a legislation that defines what an adult is.

Yawn. He has already said he was referring to consenting adults...

[Subby]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Even using AI, a third party sperm or egg must be used, and in the case of males, a surrogate must be found to carry the child to term.

Absolutely - I said as much in my post. So married gay couples CAN procreate, just like thousands of hetero couples do every year.

Again though, procreation is not part of the marriage contract, so it doesn't really matter either way.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

At first I thought RA was just playing devil's advocate. Now I'm pretty sure he actually wants to marry a 12 year old girl.

Not really devil's advocate, but RendeR was probably close in arguing for the sake of arguing. We all have a set of morals (officially I don't really have a problem with gay marriages....or really underage marriages either...but I'll try to stay on topic ).

[Raiders Army]

That and really I've gotten two emails today. Very strange, but not surprising for a Friday.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Subby

Absolutely - I said as much in my post. So married gay couples CAN procreate, just like thousands of hetero couples do every year.

Again though, procreation is not part of the marriage contract, so it doesn't really matter either way.

Very nicely done subby.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is a pretty ignorant question. A question of civil rights affects everyone, because if the nation allows this type of blatant bigotry to happen once it can and probably will move on to other tihngs.

First they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then they came for the Catholics, And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic;

And then, they came for me...

[lurker]

I guess Joseph and Mary had a sham marriage because they didn't have children together.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household.

Bullshit.

I'm married and there was nothing religious about our ceremony at all.

I guess you are also proposing that atheists shouldn't be able to be married either?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by lurker

I guess Joseph and Mary had a sham marriage because they didn't have children together.

actually, fwiw, that's not believed to be true.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by stevew

actually, fwiw, that's not believed to be true.

"The nature of God and the Virgin Birth - those are leaps of faith. But believing a wife never humped her husband - that's just gullibility" - Rufus, the 13th Apostle.

[Antmeister]

I guess I am in the camp that doesn't understand how "Prop 8" was passed. It wasn't that long ago when interracial marriages were illegal is some states. Just because it was against the law doesn't mean it is right and the country didn't dissolve when these marriages occured. So I have a hard time understanding why this is any different.

If the argument is because of "traditional marriage", how do you define that in the context of our country where we have a wide assortment of religions? Plus what was considered traditional 50 years ago differs drastically today.

And how can you defend the thousands of people who marry in Vegas on a drunken night on the town with the first person they meet and say that this is somehow a "traditional marriage"? Or the many people who marry only to gain citizenship in the United States?

This stuff happens regardless of orientation or race, but yet we decide that this small minority is somehow in the wrong because it goes against one's religion. If that's the case and we are legislating a religions' sins, there should be a lot more ridiculous laws on the books.

[DanGarion]

All you people that think yes on 8 is great all realize that regardless of you discriminating upon gays they still are going to be having sex with one another? I mean if it's not right for them to get married we might as well vote that it's wrong for them to fuck one another... right? Hell let's throw them all in jail since it should be a punishable offense to a women to have sexual relations with another women or a man with a man.

While we are at it, since there is no reason why straight people should have sexual intercourse except for procreation lets ban that too. Oh and if you aren't going to have children you have no reason to get married. In fact I think it should be required that every person is married by the time they are 25 and they must procreate. I mean the only right thing to do is to continue the human race, there is no reason why people should not marry and procreate... right?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think marriage should be defined in two ways:

1) The legal, civil act that has tax implications etc.
2) The religious act that is sanctioned by a church.

The first one should let any 2 consenting people get married and reap the benefits or penalties that come with the association. If polygamists want to fight for the right to have multiple parties in the association I'd be fine with it so long as it didn't open up any legal/tax advantages over a 1-to-1 marriage.

The second one should be up to the church to decide. If you don't like the rules of your church, find a new church or start your own.

I'd already stated something to this affect in the other Prop 8 thread. I'm right with you on this, you are a voice of reason.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think the biggest deterrent from 'marrying' your roommate for tax purposes would be the legal costs involved in both filing for the marriage and then the divorce?

I don't know, but it seems like that sort of fraud could be dealt with pretty easily if legislators wanted/need to.

Who are they defrauding? Where is it's the legislators decision to determine why someone got married? If roommates get married for the tax benefits and no other reason I don't see the issue with it. I don't see where in the law that anyone should be able to place stipulations on why anyone is getting married. Of course this leads to me and my belief that there should be no tax benefits for marriages or children, but that makes too much sense.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I take it you would support a 36 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl who love each other then. If you do, then I applaud your open-mindedness.

Ah, the Jerry Lee Lewis scenario aka 'Straw man argument'. Also, I've never claimed I am completely open minded.

However, I'll play the game. It's illegal and for well thought out reasons, more than likely backed up by actual data and research as to the WHY it is not a good thing to allow that.

Whereas there has not been one argument against gay marriage that is not emotionally or religiously motivated as opposed to actual scientific reasons WHY it would be bad for gays to marry. None, zero, nada.

This not only goes to you RaidersArmy, but, to everyone, I am willing to fight tooth and nail for anyone regardless of race, religion, age, sexual preference, against a group of people trying to prevent you from having the same civil rights as everyone else here in this country. Why? Because it's discrimination. It's that simple.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Please explain what procreation has to do with marriage.

(begin transmission)
Some people believe that marriage is only for procreation. That's why they get married, so they can have sex and babies, and that you should only have sex for procreation.
(end transmission)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Ah, the Jerry Lee Lewis scenario aka 'Straw man argument'. Also, I've never claimed I am completely open minded.

However, I'll play the game. It's illegal and for well thought out reasons, more than likely backed up by actual data and research as to the WHY it is not a good thing to allow that.

Actually, that could be a religious/cultural bias too. I think there have been quite a few cultures with practices that pair adults/adolescents (many where the pairings are same-sex, too).

[Pumpy Tudors]

Can a man marry a sandwich?
Can a man marry a midget?
Can a man be married to a midget and have sex with a sandwich?
Can a man procreate with a 12-year-old sandwich?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This is simple in two ways...

1. This is clearly religiously motivated
2. Replace the word gay with black, hispanic, white, mixed race, french, italian, etc...and I promise you people would be screaming discrimination.

The problem is, when you can replace one word with another word and it turns it into a bad thing, the whole thing is bad regardless of what qualifier you use.

I said it in the Prop 8 thread and I'll say it here: Since the people who are holding so dearly and trying to protect 'traditional marriage', 'only man & woman marriage' and can't play fairly, then the United States needs to make ALL marriages null and void and only recognize civil unions.

If it's god that you are worried about, I'm sure you will have no problems finding a church that will 'marry' you. After all, it's just a word...

My last statement before this thread gets locked (I just don't see this thread lasting very much longer unfortunately), I just can't help but keep hearing this nagging statement in the United States Constitution..."The Persuit of Happiness". Certain voters of California have denied that "Persuit", regardless if you agree with someone's lifestyle or not, it is not up to us to legislate people's happiness and EVERYONE, regardless of who they are, what they look like or who they fall in love with, have THE RIGHT to persue their happiness and to not be discriminated against because they follow a different path or way of life.

Just a few things.

First, the phrase "pursuit of happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution. It appears in the Declaration of Independence. Secondly, from a historical context, the phrase has a general meaning that doesn't involve "doing your own thing". The Warren court in 1967 used the phrase in the decision for Loving v. Virginia, but earlier courts attached more of an economic meaning to the phrase Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co, which is more in line with Locke's originial "life, liberty, and estate".

I know the "slippery slope" argument is always met with eye-rolling and people like RendeR saying it's not germaine to the point at hand, but I find that to be ridiculous. Of course there's a slippery slope. Heck, it may not even be a bad thing. For instance, the process of electing a black man as President depended on many different events throughout history, going back to northern states ending slavery in the early 1800's. Liberty and equality doesn't happen all at once. It tends to come in fits and starts, and often overlaps between groups.

If the argument for gay marriage is that it's discriminatory against two people in love, then it seems only natural that three people in love are also going to feel discriminated against if their marriage isn't recognized by the court. RA brought up the issue of children and was rebutted, but let's not forget that the lines dividing rights of adults and rights of children are somewhat arbitrary and also defined by society at large through the legislative process.

It's for these reasons that I'm in favor of trying to get the government out of the marriage business. I think it forces the government to get involved in an issue that it best left to society at large.

[Autumn]

To play moderator here, I don't think it's quite fair to completely dismiss the "underage marriage" issue here. As cuervo72 points out, that is an example of one of the cultural rules we've established around marriage and sexual pairing. It's a very different issue, just as polygamy, but they are all stand as examples of rules our society has created.

I think advocates of allowing gay marriage need to be able to include those facts in their arguments, as i feel the argument is still strong. The main argument being, I think, that there are no non-religious basis to discriminate against gay couples. While one could see both underage marriage and gay marriage as cultural laws, I think that society has succeeded in arguing in a secular way against underage marriage, but has no secular argument about gay marriage.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Autumn

To play moderator here, I don't think it's quite fair to completely dismiss the "underage marriage" issue here. As cuervo72 points out, that is an example of one of the cultural rules we've established around marriage and sexual pairing. It's a very different issue, just as polygamy, but they are all stand as examples of rules our society has created.

I think advocates of allowing gay marriage need to be able to include those facts in their arguments, as i feel the argument is still strong. The main argument being, I think, that there are no non-religious basis to discriminate against gay couples. While one could see both underage marriage and gay marriage as cultural laws, I think that society has succeeded in arguing in a secular way against underage marriage, but has no secular argument about gay marriage.

There are also compelling secular arguments against allowing polygamist marraiges as well as incestual marriages, the other "slippery slope" argument folks like to make.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This not only goes to you RaidersArmy, but, to everyone, I am willing to fight tooth and nail for anyone regardless of race, religion, age, sexual preference, against a group of people trying to prevent you from having the same civil rights as everyone else here in this country. Why? Because it's discrimination. It's that simple.

I would also note that we have restrictions on freedom of religion in this country, including restrictions on the right to marry. Up to the 1870's, the Mormon Church sought protection under the Constitution to practice polygamy. Reynolds v. United States was the case that said laws cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, but may interfere with practices.

That same decision, btw, brought up the slippery slope argument by stating that if polygamy was allowed for religious reasons, it would only be a matter of time before someone brought up human sacrifice as a religious obligation.

The court said, "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Finally, every adult male and adult female play by the same rules of marriage in this country. Government recognition of same sex marriage is prohibited in most places regardless of the reasons why you may choose to want government recognition of that marriage. Love has nothing to do with it, and frankly, I don't want to have to get government approval of my love for someone else. It's another reason I think it would just be better for the government to not get involved, and why I think both sides have untenable positions on this issue.

[Fidatelo]

I wonder if R. Kelly is reading this thread right now and thinking "Shit! I should have thought this through a little more before I voted YES on Tuesday!"

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Finally, every adult male and adult female play by the same rules of marriage in this country.

So long as you're a man and want to marry a woman, or a woman who wnats to mary a man, correct. There's the rub, no?

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Love has nothing to do with it, and frankly, I don't want to have to get government approval of my love for someone else.

Too late. It already does.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's another reason I think it would just be better for the government to not get involved, and why I think both sides have untenable positions on this issue.

So, are you saying, for the sake of reasonableness, two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, should be allowed to get married and have that marriage recognized by law? Because, as it stands now, the government is involved and is prohibiting same sex marriages, but allowing heterosexual marriages.

[Autumn]

I imagine there's probably other Internet forums R. Kelly probably focuses his computer time on.