it makes a difference because both sides are using our tax dollars to fight and spend our money, that by decree in it self, the constitution says that everyone has a right to they're belief in what ever they please as long as it dose not inter-fear with some one else's pursuit of they're peaceful happiness

Rome had religion deeply imbedded in the law with marriage regulated by the vestal virgins and the temples

Sexuality is cultural, you are hardwired to enjoy sex with a piece of wood. Where how when who and how often other people get involved is all a game

pfff really?

@Einstein (the man who believes that the definition of marriage hasn't changed in 4000 years)
    You're right. The wife is still the property of the husband, and commands a considerable dowry. Furthermore, if she commits a crime, her husband will be the one to go to trial for it. The legal age for marriage is still 12, and must come with parental permission.

@ Mr. Fancsali (the man who believes it's wrong for people who cannot conceive a child to marry)
   You're right. That's why it's required by law for married couples to produce. That's also why marriage is banned for a) women who have hit menopause, b) men who are impotent and c) women who are impotent.

Christ everybody who tries to argue this point completely ignores the logic and common sense of the situation. Who are you to claim the right to say what is moral? If I decided I didn't like Mr. Fancsali's face...if I decided that his face repulsed me...and I was able to get a majority of fellow-countrymen to agree with me in thinking that his face was repulsive. If we held a vote to see whether we could ban Mr. Fancsali from showing his ugly face in public, and we ended up getting 51% of the popular vote in our favour...IS IT FAIR THAT MR. FANCSALI'S FACE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE ARE OFFENDED BY IT???

Of course not. A supreme court justice would say "Get over his ugly face. You have to deal with it." This is no different from gay marriage. A bunch of bumbling hicks saying to themselves "It's not natural" or "it offends me". Grow up.

Yell, that is actually not true.
Where as the actual festivity often was linked to religion, the act of marriage was not. In fact, for a long time it was enough for the two pater familias to go to the forum and state the bride had changed familia.

Did it in the last thread and outlined a bunch of it here. The angry 15 year old crew has nothing to respond with. I NEVER get responses pointing out where we disagree with the basis of my positions. I NEVER get responses pointing out where in my reasoning we disagree which leads to disagreements upon the basis of my positions leading to my conclusions. You're not here to discuss anything. You're probably not capable. Maybe that's why you're so angry and it's always FAILSAUCE LOLOLOL from you instead of any substantive response?

A lot of the time I'm just giving my best shot at the real objections to your position and the most legitimate grounds for disagreement with you. The idea is that a discussion of the subjects will include a response to these real and legitimate points. A significant portion of the time my real political preference is not the thing I support. But it certainly doesn't look good to me if most of those who agree with my position can't explain how they discount the objections to our position. It's obviously not personal when I agree with someone's position but question them the best I can -- this is why ridiculous insult responses which do not clarify how one responds to my questions just look really, really ridiculous.

@Einstein (the man who believes that the definition of marriage hasn't changed in 4000 years)
    You're right. The wife is still the property of the husband, and commands a considerable dowry. Furthermore, if she commits a crime, her husband will be the one to go to trial for it. The legal age for marriage is still 12, and must come with parental permission.

@ Mr. Fancsali (the man who believes it's wrong for people who cannot conceive a child to marry)
   You're right. That's why it's required by law for married couples to produce. That's also why marriage is banned for a) women who have hit menopause, b) men who are impotent and c) women who are impotent.

Address these issues. If one of your arguments is essentially that "gay couples cannot reproduce", then why should post-menopausal women have the right to marriage. I am ignorant. Enlighten me.

I will offer $1000 if you can show me where I said the wife is the property of the man.

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

@Einstein: What you said was  "history, biological issues, religious issues, and statistical issues"
Statistical issues have been rebutted (see the analogy of Mr. Fancsali's ugly face), religious issues have been rebutted by your constitution, biological issues are irrelevant as nothing about marriage is biological. I am proving my point that the "history" of marriage contains such "perks" as ownership of women, dowries, political alliances and such. My point being that there is absolutely NOTHING in terms of consistency in the "tradition" of marriage.

@Mr. Fancsali:

If I'm not clear on what your argument is, then clearly you haven't done a very good job of articulating it. Perhaps my ignorance is what causes me not to understand your point based on the stuff you have already written. If you are convinced of your "righteousness", surely you don't mind explaining yourself to people like me.

Address these two points

@Einstein (the man who believes that the definition of marriage hasn't changed in 4000 years)
    You're right. The wife is still the property of the husband, and commands a considerable dowry. Furthermore, if she commits a crime, her husband will be the one to go to trial for it. The legal age for marriage is still 12, and must come with parental permission.

@ Mr. Fancsali (the man who believes it's wrong for people who cannot conceive a child to marry)
   You're right. That's why it's required by law for married couples to produce. That's also why marriage is banned for a) women who have hit menopause, b) men who are impotent and c) women who are impotent.

Your attempt to just throw away my arguments are like someone saying "I know you are but what am I" at anything anyone says.

Your constitutional argument belies real world realities for instance, which is exactly the point I was making, you cannot possibly make enough people say "I will stand for that" with marriage, but you can get 95% to agree to any other title.

Why not go for what you can get and let the anger, the other issues slowly go away? Or would you like to over reach and keep making people smack you down for being idiots towards how they feel on the issue?

Is it just me or is that sort of argument about as good as it gets from our moronic righties anyway?

Who are our moronic righties and how did they display their idiocy?