I you don’t understand what I mean, think about why you think “Civil Union” is different from “Marriage”.

I must also point out that the vast majority of people don’t get married for the legal benefits. American culture recognizes marriage as a spiritual and personal union first, a legal one second, so I don’t think if gay marriage were legal on a federal level we would have drinking buddies getting married so they can catch more tax breaks, and I don’t believe if people were allowed to marry anyone they choose, we’d have sons wedding their mothers and brothers marrying their sisters. Sure, there are some who might, but there are some who do that now, purely for the legal benefits.

If all you’ve heard from gays is how they want the benefits from traditional marriage, then perhaps you haven’t heard from the right gays. My experience has been that gays love the same and simply want the same treatment as heterosexuals.

Why should they not have it?

The only problem that I have with it, I have stated here before. I will now ramble through it again.

Most of the arguments that I have heard from gays about their right to marriage stems from fairness in benefits. Very seldom do you hear a gay couple argue that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. If that was their argument there is nothing that stops them from spending their lives together.

The argument is benefits. Married people share benefits that other “couples” do not. If I die (GOD forbid), my wife inherits all of my worldly possesions, tax free. If a gay guy dies (GOD forbid) his gay partner does not inherit his worldly possesions, tax free. They want to be allowed to be married so that they can have the benefits of matrimony. Is that okay? Read on before you answer that question.

If a gay couple is afforded that benefit, then EVERYONE should be afforded that benefit. Is that okay? I hope you still agree.

Let’s say that a man is bi-sexual. At the time of his death both of his partners should be allowed to share equally in his worldly possesions, tax free. If you do not agree I have to ask why a gay person should be given a benefit that is not afford to a bi-person?

Wait there is more.

If Mr. and Mrs. Jones next door are married and Mr. Jones dies (GOD forbid) and Mrs. Jones inherits all of his wordly possesions, tax free. Is it not then fair that I be able to wed my mother? If my dear old MILLIONAIRE mother dies (GOD forbid) I will inherit all of her wordly possesions. But that will not be tax free. Our tax addicted government will take 50% and leave me 50%. Now, if I were allowed to marry my mother I would inherit all of her wordly possesions at the time of her death … TAX FREE.

Should I not be allowed to marry whomever I want to, even if it is JUST to acquire some benfit that is afforded to someone else.

Wealthy parents should be allowed to marry ALL of their offspring.

Curt is probably closest on this, government should get out of the marriage business. They ONLY got involved so that they could sell us some bullshit marriage license anyway.

Language is flexible. Definitions/ideas change with the times. Years ago marriage between the races was seen as wrong. For some people it still is.

I really don’t care what gay people do with other gay people. If they want to get “married” and live together, etc. then they should be able to.

The govt should stay out of the marriage business entirely. Let churches or other religious organizations deal with it. If the Catholics don’t accept gays, then they shouldn’t be forced to marry them. If another church wants to marry them, they should be able to.

To sum up: I don’t think it’s any business of Marc’s what gays call their relationships. If they want to call them marriages, then they should. If that upsets Marc, then he should ignore them or heckle them from a distance. But no one should take his definition any more seriously than the gays’

I really believe most Americans feel that your sexuality is your own business, and it is. Our problem is that we split legal hairs all the time.

I think tha actual term “marriage” is a religous one just like “bible” and “Priest” If there is to be a separation of church and state, then this is not a matter for the government at all. It shouldn’t be explicitly legal or illegal.

A constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is a bunch of BS too. Our constitution is about what we can do, not what we can’t.

If the government recognized civil unions, most of us would not really give a shit. Let us also extend the marriage tax penalty to include civil unions along with the inheritence law interpretation junk.

I guess what I want is a reason why. Why are gays wanting the term “marriage” at all? Is this really about equal protection? Do I as a married, heterosexual man really have any additional protections? Is this really about gays having the need for society to sanction their behavior, or are there real additional rights to be claimed?

I know that divorce lawyers are chomping at the bit to get these marriages recognized. This is not necessarily a dig at the short-term, unstable relationship stereotype of gay relatonships, it is a simple fact. More marriages = more divorces = richer lawyers.

What a screwed up country

I was paraphrasing from a study done in my state on gay adoptions. Needless to say, this study concluded that gay adoptions were better. Of course, it didn’t say how much better..lol.

I was raised in foster care until the age of 6. I’d rather be in foster care than living with two fathers or two mothers.