i think states should have more say in what the feel is acceptable in their borders. gay marriages however, are a civil rights issue and therefore i feel that it is necessary that a federal mandate should be enforced. if segregation would have been left to the states to decide, what would the country be like today? what if states would only enforce civil rights they felt were more atuned to what they consider 'normal.'

as for what marriage is, its up to the individual. there is no defenition of marriage. you dont need to be married in order to have kids, so i dont see how you can say that marriage is for people who want to have kids and start a family.

Colemon, stackum,johnj, you are homophobes.

[quote="Short Hand":66285]Colemon, stackum,johnj, you are homophobes.[/quote:66285]gg name calling sleeping: If you have something intelligent, say it. Otherwise, please do not respond.

homophobe.

gimmie a break guys. short, quit with the name calling man.

Rising Trade Deficits
NAFTA
CAFTA
A S. American Labor review done, that the Senate wants sugar coated.
Rising decent against the US on an interntial level.
Destruction of the Middle Class.
Out-Sourcing
Coprotate Dominance in politcs.
The enviroment.
Unitng the human race under one banner.
Our soldiers and how they are treated.
Fighting epidemics on a world level. (EX: AIDs in Africa)
Modernizing
Droping oil, and using cleaner, and better alternatives.
Illegal Imagration

Etc...the list continues.



But no Gay Marriage, and the Pope are FAR more important.

wallbash:

The human race is doomed.

Sorry Short I have lived with another man, we were roomies, Hell I've lived with women that were roomies. I've been married and shacked-up. Now explain to me about relationships.

So john, you're saying that my coworker and her husband, who are married but have no plans of having children, aren't actually married?

They are married, and have no plans of having children. Ahhhhh right. Which one are you talking to?

ninty9, you have hit on what is leading to the religious backlash in this country. The pendulum has been swinging towards the attitude that we have freedom of speech as long as you don't talk about God, or that the founding fathers really meant that we should have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. The silent majority has finally stood up and taken a stand. This will swing the pendulum back...until they get complacent again (which they will) and the pendulum will swing again.

As for homosexuality. I don't believe it is "normal". (assuming what is normal will always be in the majority) If homosexuality was the norm we would have trouble fighting off extinction. That doesn't mean that gays should be persecuted. (sp?)

It's probably only a matter of semantics but I think "marriage" as a term and an institution should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman. I agree with Stackem that some type of Civil Union could be established to help protect gay partners from loss of property in the event one of them dies. (for example)

I've talked to them both. You're saying that the only reason anyone gets married is to have children?

what does religion have anything to do with marriage?

it's one of the 7 sacraments.

double post wallbash:

Sure back in the 1950's, today marriage only means benifits from the government and your place of employment.
(and what if a couple couldnt have childern?, there not allowed to have a marriage because of it?