My concern is this. You want to issue a law that would offend half the USA to satisfy a small group's desire to participate in a formality?

A formality???

ahahahahaha! Waste of money and effort.

It boils down to the fact that it is noones business to exclude two loving human beings from marrige. Religion should really know its place

No, thats absurd since marriage is a religious ceremony -- hence a legal union should be created and the marriage should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

> Who cares as long as we are at a satisfactory level? Trying to increase freedom
> is good, but not when the costs far outweigh the rewards.

Satisfactory? So gays can't obtain the same rights as whites, blacks and women...and thats satisfactory?

> Justinian, same thing could be said about slavery.

No it couldn't, because slavery is an evil way to capitalize on others. Marriage is an act of good faith towards someone you love.

The cost of human slavery is FAR higher then the cost of restrictions on marriage.

It's freedom to get government encouragement for your actions? Please explain.

It's no one's business to exclude people from government encouragement of functions to which said people do not contribute? Please explain. [Has NOTIHNG to do with religion.]

Marriage is not primarily a "religious ceremony." Please try again.

> It's freedom to get government encouragement for your
> actions? Please explain.

Its freedom to get government and social acknowledgement for your healthy relationship.
Its freedom to get tax benefits and other monetary benefits like any other couple.

> It's no one's business to exclude people from government encouragement of
> functions to which said people do not contribute? Please explain.

Please explain their lack of contribution...

> Marriage is not primarily a "religious ceremony." Please try again.

True dat, fool. I mean its a religious ideal that is being rewarded by the government. All governments.

"The only girl who ever cooked for me was the one who wanted to move in so she could cut her college costs."

Wouldn't she also share the rent?

"This is beyond just tradition, just as kissing has grown beyond tradition"

Apparently according to some research, kissing allows two people to exchange saliva. Because everyone has different mixtures of enzymes, some people have better tasting saliva relative to others. Supposedly, the better tasting saliva people are whom you tend to be attracted to.

@ Fancsali, which thread did you lay out your arguments against gay marriage? I'll go through that thread and look for it.

I meant the abolishing of slavery was also "a law that would offend half the USA to satisfy a small group's desire".

The majority is not always right.

> As for whether it would offense half the population, ok I don't know that. But
> I can tell you that 37% of Americans want evolution replaced with creationism,
> and 2/3 want it taught alongside creationism.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/

> sKoE )= wrote:

I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of Americans want more action on "Global Warming" too. Should American policy and laws be based on this fanatical and faith-based hype too?>

Yes, completely ignore my point that it may be wrong to deny homosexuals equal rights to the formality of marriage, but it is a costly fight that is only driven by ideology and offers little, if any, practical benefit.

Edit: I think it's safe to accuse the side of favoring homosexual marriages as being ideologues. You are more concerned about satisfying your abstract ideas like equality in frivolous places than considering the public utility of your proposals.