I agree with this. I do think that if you read the constitution literally as it is written, then you can't have straight marriage without gay marriage. But I also believe reading the constitution literally isn't the best approach. For example, the same equality clause which I am quoting should technically ban handicap spaces in parking lots. However, many people would say that handicapped parking spots are a good thing and would use their own interpretation to say that the constitution does not ban them.

If everyone has the right to worship Buddah but not Jesus, then again everyone has the right to worship subject to the same qualifying criteria - no exceptions. In order to qualify for legal worship, you must be worshipping Buddah. It's the same for everyone.

But the qualifications we create CAN be discriminatory. When our qualifcations are, "you can do straight marriage, but not gay marriage," then those qualifications discriminate against gay people. It doesn't matter that everyone faces the "same" qualifications: those qualifications are unfair.

Not exactly: polygamists should have the right to marry anyone they choose.

By banning gay marriage, you are saying that I can't do the same thing with a man as with a woman. A person's gender determines his rights, and that doesn't make sense. With polygamist marriage, polygamists are asking for a set of government benefits to be extended beyond just one person, which may or may not make sense.

Let's think of different rights: let's say only men are allowed to own a car and only women are allowed to own a boat. Does that make sense? Of course not: your gender shouldn't matter. Both men and women should be allowed to own cars, and the same goes for boats.

However, should multiple people be able to own the same car? Should multiple people be allowed to own the same boat? These are a less obvious and require more debate to figure out.

This is not the UK. The US has certain rules about driving which apply equally to all citizens. We don't have the "gay lane" for gay drivers and the "straight lane" for straight drivers, nor do we have the "men's lane" and "women's lane".

Though maybe you could say that we're discriminating against people who want to drive on the left, and I suppose that is true. Really, I'd like for people to be free to drive on whichever side of the road they choose. But I would argue that there is no way to fix that without causing a great deal of harm. I mean, how would we fix this discrimination? Allow people to drive on both sides of the road? The roads would be chaos.

If you have a good fix for this discrimination, then let me know. But with gay marriage, the fix is easy and harms no one.


But each sibling should have equal rights to the other. If one person is allowed to have include his sibling as a dependant on his tax return, then every person should be allowed that same right for his own sibling. The gender combination of the siblings shouldn't even be considered.

We're not talking about a couple's rights: we're talking about an individual's right to marry the person he chooses. A group does not have rights, but the individuals who are part of that group do.

I guess I kind of got bored of debating. My arguments seemed to be repetetive, and I was spending too much time on the forums. I'll probably disappear again relatively soon, but I still check the forums on occassion.

I'm glad to see some familiar faces still around.