I find it repulsive that some people (basically most members of all major religions) argue against gay marriages on the ground of their fictional belief system, trying to restrict the personal rights of other persons.
It's simply noone business to get involved in the personal life and dealings of any couple. They want to fuck someone of the same sex? Let them. They want to marry said person? Let them.
It's not as if they, by way of some godly magic, will suddenly stop being gay, get a homely wife and start making babies.

I really lack the vocabulary to express myself in the forceful and articulate way i'd want to, but i think i made my point.

If they shoot down marriage equality, my spring break will be spent in Washington. If I don't come back, I probably got arrested.

Homosexuals do have equal protection under the law: they have just as much right as a straight person to find a member of the opposite sex and get married. There is no discrimination regarding marriage; everyone is allowed to get married, regardless of your sexual orientation.

The question is: Why is the government involved in marriage *at all*? The answer: Marriage between a man and woman is supported by the "state" because it fosters the continuation of the population, and thus keeps the state strong (as opposed to non-existent). As homosexuals by natural law can not reproduce, there is no need for the state to encourage homosexual marriage.

Marriage is recognized by the "state" and provided a financial benefit to encourage something which strengthens the state -- no different than farm subsidies, or, by contrast, no different than the lack of federal stimulus for the buggy whip industry.

If the Federal government should begin to support homosexual marriage because they don't want people to feel left out (which they aren't -- anyone can find someone to get married to...no one is prevented from marriage, except my age), then why not just expand it to polygamy? Why shouldn't I have a traditional polygamist marriage, create my harem and have the same marriage benefits for all of us, because we all love each other...and in fact may have a more stable home, because the loss of one member is not 50%, but a lesser percent of the marriage, and thus of less impact?

<pours gas, strikes match, flings it, runs away...>

It's OK to be GAY ...... it's about we ALL challenged the HATERS !!

""Remember, the Constitution makes no mention of gays. They didn't come to America until the 1960s."

- Justice Antonin Scalia (taken without permission from Borowitz)"

Justice Scalia would do well to remember the Constitution makes no mention of blacks, Jews, Latinos or women, either (not until the 20th century, anyway)...

And ALL are afforded equal protection under the law via the 14th Amendment.

.....it's about time we ALL challenged the HATERS !!

/\ This is not a moral argument, or a judgement against or for any lifestyle -- it is simply recognizing what the involvement of the "state" really is.

@obi... 'twas a joke.

@krellin... if you want to marry a diabetic elephant, the government has no right to stop you from marrying a diabetic elephant. That's how I see it.

Bo-sox - go ahead and marry a diabetic elephant. I don't care. Marry your favorite goat, as you have already consumated the arrangement, I'm sure....but to what benefit is it to the state that they should provide you a financial benefit to do so?

You are missing the point - naturally - that the financial benefits of marriage are there to encourage the continuation of the population through "natural" marriage - and I use "natural" because man/woman is the only current method to reproduce and continue the species, and they repopulate the nation.

Marriage benefits have nothing to do with your feelings; they are there for the supposed benefit state as a whole, no different than any other tax subsidy or loophole.

If you want to find a church or whatever to do your elephant ceremony and wear and elephant wedding ring, who gives a flying fuck.

Well krellin, what about hetrosexual couples that marry but don't have any kids? Should they be excluded from financial benefits they get because of their marriage?
I agree that your argument is valid but the way you make it is in my opinion incomplete. A solution to reward the "strengthening the state by making babies" would be to pay the parents more money per child and simply cancel all financial benefits gained by the institution of marriage. That would pretty much solve the issue...

"Natural" marriage can include test tube babies, sperm donors, surrogates, and all of the other things that gay people can use to have children of their own, right? We have all of these crazy not-so-natural things to create children that theoretically shouldn't be in existence anyway.

I don't have a clue whether "gayness" is natural. Frankly, I don't care; all people and all living and non-living things should be treated with the same respect that everyone and everything else gets. If that includes benefits, cool.

Partysane - I don't think there should be a marriage benefit period -- that would solve the issue. But since there is, I'm telling you why it is there. You can nit-pick it with what-ifs all you want.

Bo-sox - a woman and a woman can not have a test tube baby. Sorry.

Yes, advanced science has changed the field of baby-making, etc. Not the point. The point is for thousands and thousands of years, only a man and woman could have a baby, and thus States promote marriage to strengthen the society.

Best solution is to get the federal government completely out of marriage and not recognize it at all. If you want someone to have visitation rights and inheritance rights, go since a contract (which is all a marriage license is anyway).

@ krellin, the thing is most people against gay marriage don't argue it for the reasons you're mentioning or I would be more interested in their logic. Instead they are arguing from a religious perspective which is absurd. In almost every conversation I have had about why gay marriage is bad with people online and in person it eventually turns to biblical quotes and JESUS SAID. To be frank, I don't give a shit what Jesus said or what the bible said, which is why I am opposed to laws that were made to appease religious views.

"a woman and a woman can not have a test tube baby. Sorry."

Not my point at all. I'm saying that technologies are crazy non-natural as it is. Natural tends not to matter in today's world. The last 200 years have seen unprecedented developments in human history; you can't argue "for thousands and thousands of years" anymore. Very little is like it was for thousands and thousands of years.

Marriage isn't something a state should mandate.. it's not something anyone should mandate. Anyone should be able to marry if they are physically capable of having (includes adopting) children, as your point states, and that includes homosexual people just as much as any heterosexual person.

jmo - I'm not arguing as most people, from a religious/moral ethos. Out government does not and should not run on morals and ethos....or shouldn't, anyway. That's why we have a non-religious document to guide us. I'm trying to look at it purely from the rational point of the state....and in that case, everyone can get married - to someone of the opposite sex - therefore there is no discrimination in that ability to marry.

bo - the state does not "mandate" marriage, otherwise you would be forced to get married. You are using improper terminology.

I agree - marry whomever/whatever you want -- but the state should not provide you financial benefits just because it feels good.

Okay, regulate. Care about. Whatever. You are contradicting yourself. If you have the ability to raise children as servants of the state (sounds horrible, but it's true), and you get married, you should be compensated for raising your children in the state. It doesn't matter if you're gay; you can still raise children. That is *your* point, not mine.

bo - No, you can't read. I said the state should get out of the marriage business, period. I'm telling you WHY they are involved now...which is because of the archaic notion that they needed to support marriage to ensure the continuation of the population; clearly we don't need this , so the feds should get out of recognizing marriage *at all*, and in place, people who want to enter finanaical contractual agreements regarding inheritence, visitation, etc, should be able to. And if you want to wear a ring and "get married" to whatever, go ahead...but leave the Feds out of it completely.

And then cut farm subsidies, and cut corporate tax holes, etc....because they are *all* the same...

Once you cut the money ties to marriage, the issue resolves itself overnight.

Corollary: There are also a number of people out there that, for whatever reason, do *not* want to formally get married, but may be in committed relationships. These people are *also* discriminated against because they do not receive any marriage benefits because they don't *want* to get married, even though they may be in a committed relationship, sharing a household and raising children together.

It is not fair that even though you effectively lead a married life, you can not partake of the financial benefits of the lifestyle for lack of...what? A piece of paper filed with the court system? Thus...marriage is a court document, a contract, nothing more, nothing less. It is a financial incentive provided by the state for some useless purpose that society could well do without.

Thus, again, the entire concept of marriage being recognized by the Federal government is ridiculous; the Federal government should not exist to regulate individual relationships *at all*.

I HATE people who argue against gay marriage on religious grounds. But the pro-gay marriage claim that the ONLY argument/rationale against gay marriage is based on religion is a bullshit claim.

krellin is right. *Everyone* has the right to a heterosexual marriage. Therefore, where is the unequal protection? Furthermore, how is a *state* law prohibiting gay marriage unconstitutional? The fact that the Supreme Court is even hearing this case is a sad reflection on how much of a joke the SC is nowadays.

I'm all for privacy, equal rights, and shit like that but if the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 and DOMA under the 14th Amendment, it will be flagrant judicial activism.

Ordinarily, I would predict that the Court wouldn't have the balls to rule on it and throw it out on procedural grounds, but Obama has stuffed it with radicals. There's no way to tell after their two consecutive BULLSHIT decisions on SB 1070 and the ACA, two cases that would have immediately been decided 9-0 (in favor of the conservative-backed group) by ANY other Supreme Court in American history.

What if this was about legalizing interracial marriage? You could argue that everyone has the right to marry in their race so where is the discrimination? I'm sure despite that most people would argue that we should legalize interracial marriage on the basis that there is discrimination there AND that the illegality of it is an affront to individual freedoms.

I defy you to approach someone that has been discriminated against their entire life for the color of their skin and suggest to them that their *existence* as a particular race is equivalent to a lifestyle choice...Bring your armor and running shoes if you do, and make sure someone is there to film your beat-down...

No - before you go there - there is no scientific evidence that "you are born that way" for sexual choices, despite all arguments that start with, "Well why would I want to suffer....blah blah blah....if I could choose". The science doesn't back that argument, and behavioral choices do not equate to being born of a particular skin color.

Not to mention that, even if you are "born gay", it is still ultimately a reference to a behavior that is either acted upon or not acted upon...where as you can't ever stop acting a color.

We expect, as a soceity, that people with violent tendencies shoudl choose to not act upon their violent tendencies, even though there is scientific evidence for brain structures being different in violent individuals/murderers....none the less, we are talking about behavior, and rules apply to behavior - you are expected to choose your behavior.

You can not choose skin color

To equate the too is offensive in the extreme.

The awkward moment a person, who I'm assuming is white, is saying that to someone that is a product of an interracial marriage and has been racially discriminated against for most of their life (not to the extent my family were in the past of course but still..). Lol.

Also there is the question of whether being gay is a lifestyle choice or not, and technically, if we were to stick just with the concept of interracial marriage and forget the racism blacks received, the two situations are quite similar.

Marrying out of your race is a 'choice' ultimately.

"Once you cut the money ties to marriage, the issue resolves itself overnight."

There's something we can all agree on.