Originally Posted by Seandog

If only intelligent people were allowed to debate politics, the issue of same-sex marriage would not even be an issue. Of all political issues, this is the one that has absolutely no valid point challenging it. There is no reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry. Those who oppose it would have more credibility if they simply told the truth: "I just don't like the idea." The fact that gays are being granted marriage rights in more states now is a progressive sign that human rights are being protected.

Originally Posted by Seandog

If only intelligent people were allowed to debate politics, the issue of same-sex marriage would not even be an issue. Of all political issues, this is the one that has absolutely no valid point challenging it. There is no reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry. Those who oppose it would have more credibility if they simply told the truth: "I just don't like the idea." The fact that gays are being granted marriage rights in more states now is a progressive sign that human rights are being protected.

Originally Posted by Zack

Marriage doesn't apply to two members of the same sex because relationships have no connection with a family arrangement.

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

If government rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage were based on procreation, I might have to agree with your statement.

But, as it does NOT, and there is nothing questioning the intent/ability/desire to procreate on a marriage application, and there is nothing regarding children on a marriage license, and there is no mention of children, procreation or family in the actual vows one takes to enter into the legally binding contract of marriage, your statement is rather moot. It's based on a false premise. You have simply based marriage on ideas that you WANT the word to have - or, at the least, that you can twist into finding validation for discrimination - not on any kind of honest representation of it.

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

Hey Sean, welcome to the forums!

I'm a bit confused when you refer to "only intelligent people" in defense of your argument.. I could say this for all of my views/opinions and it clearly doesn't help much. I think those who oppose gay-marriage do have a valid point in that marriage is defined as between a "man and a woman".

Originally Posted by Zack

Why marriage verses government civil contract?

Marriage is a government civil contract.

Marriage is a cultural arrangement based on ethical moral arrangement of men and women living together to support the basis of a family.

No it isn't. It is a government civil contract, and the only thing is question is whether to expand the perimeters of that contract to include same sex couples who have children, and families, and enjoy lawful and loving relationships the same as their straight counterparts.

Family:Man, woman and children. As children mature they desire to create a family of their own, traditionally the female is given away to the gaining family while the mature male child receives a mature female from "another" family... that is the basis for family names. Here in Puerto Rico this tradition even carries over the maiden name of the mother... for example Antonio Gonzales-Codero, Gonzales is Tony's dads name and Cordero is his dads' wives' maiden name. Daddy Codero "gave away" his female offspring to Family Gonzales headed by a mature male offspring.

Blah blah blah, this means nothing. Many different cultures have different traditions around marriage. These things don't change within families and cultures. Same sex marriage has been a reality for 4 years in Massachusetts and still the straight people marry and take on the names of their husbands (or not) and life goes on as usual the way it did for years. Some people marry in a church, some outside, some at the courthouse and some in an ersatz chapel in Las Vegas. Who are you to decide what my cultural tradition is and what I must do in a secular, free and liberal society?

Marriage doesn't apply to two members of the same sex because relationships have no connection with a family arrangement. That's bullshit, many gays have families and children.....if you took your head out of your ass long enough to see that, you would never make such a sweeping and obviously ignorant statement. A contract protecting the civil rights may apply to such arrangements similar to protections offered in "common law marriage" concerning minors and property assets and so on associated with persons living together out of wedlock.

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

If government rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage were based on procreation, I might have to agree with your statement.

But, as it does NOT, and there is nothing questioning the intent/ability/desire to procreate on a marriage application, and there is nothing regarding children on a marriage license, and there is no mention of children, procreation or family in the actual vows one takes to enter into the legally binding contract of marriage, your statement is rather moot.