As I previously mentioned.......they would get to have the same rights as most people take for granted.... hospital visits, they can share medical insurance (if one has a company that offers it and the other doesn't for example) don't forget about things such as buying a house.....if you're married both people's income gets taken into consideration..... uhm.... thats all i can think of at this very moment

i know i said i was only going to chime in once, but I've gotten a few emails asking me to chime in and another saying that it's bastardly of me to those who disagree with me to just say one thing and then ignore them for the rest of the time. So, I'll say a bit more.

To those asking for the benefits of gay marriage: That's basically like asking what are the benefits of racial integration. There's a long list of things, from social/cultural benefits to legal ramifications that can be listed, but those are really beside the point and only make up a tangent to the argument. The BENEFIT to allowing same-sex marriages is that you end a form of _clear_ discrimination that is designed to subordinate an entire class of people just b/c of who they are. How is that possibly not enough? Do you not believe in human rights and basic human dignity whatsoever?

To those complaining about religion being brought into it: tough luck. Many of you are basing your arguments on religious texts and the validity of those texts as moral guidelines must then be questioned. If you want to base your argument on something other than religion, that's fine, do so. But don't think that the legitimacy of religion is a sacred topic and that you can whip it out whenever you please in your defense.

So, the legitimacy of religion aside, IF you are using religious arguments in this debate, you have clearly missed everything you were supposed to have learned in 4th grade civics. The state is meant to be separated from religion. The argument that the state forms many of its laws from religion is a bit weak. Sure, we outlaw murder, theft, etc.; which /is/ highly correlated with most religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the arguments for these bans are based in secular logic, normally based upon a right to life/property that cannot be denied by another person (or government, except under certain constraints).

(I have a feeling that many on this board don't entirely understand the concept of rights. I suggest to get a basic understanding of what rigths are that you read Henry Shue's Basic Rights or Ronald Dworkin's Taking Rights Seriously. You don't have to agree with what they say, but they will help you understand what I, and some other here, are actually saying when we say 'right')

Right on

Seperation of Church and state is too big a phrase for GW

bush might as well be one of those priests you hear about on the news...

yep I love you guys.

thats really sad jason


id say i love propig too but ive hardly talked with her :/

i've never talked to her.. so there ;)

No need for personel attacks. If were gonna discuss it we need to discuss the legitamacy of our ideals and reasons. Otherwise this will spirial into a mudslinging 3rd grade fight.

Seperations of church and state is needed. Although I am religious I can see that we need to respect other religions as well. And to base goverment on a particular religion could create chaos. It's a difficult subject for me to express and articulate properly.

As far as other reasons against homosexual marriage, no matter how far back in history homosexuality goes that doesn't make it right. Murder goes back to the beginning of time, that doesn't make it acceptable. I don't believe the human body is suited to the kinds of acts that homosexuals subject them to and I don't think it's natural or proper. That's my opinion, ya'll are entitled to yours. Just don't expect everyone to agree.

I want to end this, but I'm just going to add $.02 to it. Marriage is religious. It is before God, it's not of man. Marrage is fully based on the Bible and it's the same in many other religions. If one religion allows it, even though I don't know one that does, then that should be the only way that it should be allowed, if there was a religion that supported it. As far as all this "seperation of church and state" goes, that has nothing to do with anything other than the government not being able to step in on religion. Two ppl don't have to marry, how many ppl do you know that are just living together? I know a LOT, they are happy and I don't see why they have to be bothered, I may not agree with it, but someone else does. I may not agree with gay couples, but they technically can't be married because it's before GOD and man.

Many of you've said leave religion out of this, but that's wrong because as stated before, marrige IS religious, why do you think you have to have a Preacher, Rabbi, or Preist (etc...) do the ceremony? The only thing about it that is a law is the papers and license. God said that it is wrong, and if two gay guys or women get married, they aren't married in God's eyes, just on paper, so what good does it do?