Get with it! This is a civil society and you should grow up!

No one in the GLBT have ever said they want special anything. They just want equal. If you have a problem with equal you may have a problem with a whole bunch more. I can make recomendations for such behavior. I work in the medical industry and know of several good clinics thay may be able to help you with your biblical anger management.

If you think that gays are here to give you problems, you were mistaken. Notice I used the work “were”? You have created your own problem by not looking at this from a historical and legal standing. You appear to me as a back yard, arm chair lawyer that had serious trouble passing the bar exam, if that is your occupation. Leaving this in the courts to make a decision is the best course of action. Since when does it make sense to allow a Majority vote to rule over a Minority class? The numbers you end up with are still the same. The prejudice is still the same.

Let me break this down for you. Equality = Good. Hate = Bad. Hate is neither a Christian or family value.

Can I marry my business? I could might be able to get tax breaks that way. Why should I be discriminated against because my business isn’t a person.

Tekakaromatagi said this:
One thing that was troubling for me in this case is that the supreme court said that each generation makes its own decisions about right and wrong. So then slavery is bad today, but was it OK in the 1800’s?

You bring up a great point. The people at NOM have been insisting that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then why not a father and daughter? Are they not man and woman?
You see how nonsensical your argument is? Of course, there are boundaries for who can and cannot marry. Just two generations ago our grandparents could marry at 14. It's called statutory rape now, and would land you in jail. So, yes, marriage is constantly in flux, and has been expanded and alterted to fit the needs of society. There are Americans who are appalled that come cultures still practice "arranged" marriages. Would you like your parents to pick your mate? And, yet it is practiced around the world. The world has now woken up to the fact that gay people have lifelong committed relationships, including children, and we'd like the protections YOU, as a heterosexual, take for granted. It's really quite simple. And, this trend is sweeping the globe at lightening speed. Keep your umbrella handy, because the storm could hit your area any time now....!

kBono, I explained that I used the same rules of argument that the SSM side uses when attacking the centrality of procreation in marriage.

Grace, it was no "tirade". Please use language with greater accuracy.

You pointed to no example of grammar errors in my comment. Please make the effort to be specific in the future and I hope you will not waste time making trivial nitpicks.

You greaty exagerated the cost of utilizing the provision for designated beneficiaries. But if affordability and accessiblity cost are actual problems, then, that can be addressed without touching marriage law.

And, in CA, domestic partnership disproves your complaint.

* * *

JS, yes, you understand the problem of the special rules that SSMers use. That is my point. That is why I turned those rules on the premises of SSM argumentation.

How can there be sexual orientation discrimination when that is not in the marriage law?

Indeed, since SSM argumentation negates the sexual aspect of the public relationship of marriage, it also negates the claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It asserts identity politics first and foremost -- almost to the exclusion of anything else.

If "gay" union has no core meaning (and apparently no one here is prepared to plainly state such a meaning), then, if it was to be merged with marital status the core meaning of marriage would be negated.

The basic problem is one of a false equivalence. It is repeated ad nauseaum by SSMers near and far.

Why should there be a public relationship status without a core meaning? Why claim it is about homo- versus heterosexal people when there is no sexual orientation requirement?

According to the SSM campaign, marriage is not about responsible procreation and is not about uniting the sexes. It is about something else. But what? Can you fill in the blank?

It can't be commitment to nothing. Nor consent to nothing. Right?

If you can fill-in the blank, then, we can discuss the merits and demerits of the proposed change. That's the real starting place.

If you can't, that woul be normal among SSMers, because it seems to be one of those things for which SSMers expect to get a free pass.

You did offer something that is rather odd: "Marriage is truly just a business relationship."

Not according to the arugments made in courtrooms by SSM advocates. Maybe you can elaborate while keeping in mind the Iowa Court opinion. Thanks.

* * *

Can I marry my business? I could might be able to get tax breaks that way. Why should I be discriminated against because my business isn't a person.

One thing that was troubling for me in this case is that the supreme court said that each generation makes its own decisions about right and wrong. So then slavery is bad today, but was it OK in the 1800's?

Tekakaromatagi