Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

The gay marriage issue is about the tax loophole and power of attorney given to opposite gender couples.

Marriage is defined by your religion.

The push should be for universal civil unions meaning that any two people, regardless of their romantic status, can file for this motion. Mother and a son, two cousins, two friends, or lovers.

Marriage, the vow and ceremony is done in front of your friends, your family, and your God.

Personally, I believe you should eliminate ALL relationship based tax loop holes (because thats what it is)

reply to post by YayMayorBee

Originally posted by YayMayorBee
Marriage is defined by your religion.

That doesn't make sense... I don't have a religion and I'm married... WE define our marriage, just as each couple does.

Marriage, the vow and ceremony is done in front of your friends, your family, and your God.

That's YOUR definition, not mine... Actually, no family or God were included in our marriage ceremony. Just two friends as witnesses... The problem here is that so many people think THEIR definition of marriage is the RIGHT one and should be applied to everyone else. People need to take care of their own back yard and stop trying to control everyone else... In other words, they need to mind their own business.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Lol, arguing just to argue.

In the United States, your religion can be the lack of religion. Your "God" Can be a guy on a cloud with a huge beard or your shoe, or no God.

Like I said, arguing to argue because you THINK you disagree with me.

Point being, marriage is defined by YOU (or the religion you identify with)... not the state.

Once again, this is a debate regarding the tax loophole and power of attorney given to straight couples who apply for a license. A marriage, in the eyes of the state, is no different than a business partnership and should be treated as such which is why your romantic status with the person on the license application should not matter because its nothing more than a legal combination of assets.

You know maybe gay marriage is not a constitutional right... I'm not going to read the vitriol being spewed by the now banned OP... but it is a human right.

Homosexuality doesn't even make me bat an eye. Life is short, find someone you can spend the rest of it with and give your love to. I think that is everyone's right. End of story.

reply to post by YayMayorBee

Originally posted by YayMayorBee
In the United States, your religion can be the lack of religion.

Lack of religion is not a religion, any more than lack of a job is a job. Religion has nothing to do with marriage, unless you CHOOSE it to be so. Having a religion is not the same as NOT having a religion.

Like I said, arguing to argue because you THINK you disagree with me.

No, I DO disagree with you on the religious reference and now, you've changed your statement so it more closely agrees with me...

Point being, marriage is defined by YOU (or the religion you identify with)... not the state.

Exactly. By ME. And since I don't have a religion, it's defined by us. Not by religion or the state.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


You should probably do your research better, 1 man/1 woman marriage is a relatively modern concept. It has only been the "norm" since the Jewish religious sect that became known as Christianity became popular, prior to that most cultures deemed it acceptable for men to have as many wives as they could functionaly support. Homosexuality was also fully accepted in most ancient civilizations, up to and including unions between people of the same sex. Ancient Rome. ancient Greece, ancient China. Even writings from older cultures have shown acceptance of, as you call it, this "fringe" portion of society. Hell, even the Native American tribes were accepting of homosexuality.