I aggree completely Ravenwood. The government should be in the business of enforcing contracts. I don't want to cheapen the institution of marriage (hell, it's cheapened me, come to think of it), but to the government it should be just another contract between 2 (or more, what the hell) individuals.

God help us.

Well then, where does it end? I love my dog and my dog loves me. Should we be allowed to marry? I'm pretty fond of my mother and sister too, but should I be allowed to marry them? This marry more than one person thing bothers me too. Maybe I'll set up a company so I can marry people (for a small fee of course) so they can get on my insurance plan. I really think we should end any favoritism or lack thereof that the state shows married couples, and only let a man and a woman marry. I'm truly sick of the whole gay agenda. Screw who you wish, just don't shout about it from the rooftops.

I also believe that allowing gay men to marry is another step closer to allowing them to adopt children or little male love slaves. Don't you think that pedophiles might just marry to get their hands on a male child up for adoption? I forsee long lines of priests at the adoption agencies.

Apoxonitall,

Your bigotry is astounding. Just because a person is gay, does not make them a pedophile. By that logic, men should not be left alone with their daughters and women should not be left alone with their sons.

As for bestiality, if you want to marry your dog, more power to ya. Just don't get bit on your honeymoon.

As for incest, as long as they are consenting adults what do you care?

Children aside, no sexual behavior between consenting adults should be subject to state prohibition. That includes plural marriage. As long as everyone consents, it is a victimless crime.

Because, our society is based on morals, and they are more and more being throw out the damn window. I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but damn, to give them the advantages that moral relationships have is sickening. Why don't we let inlaws marry? Same argument can be made. Its because its immoral and we as a society won't put up with it.

Children aside, no sexual behavior between consenting adults should be subject to state prohibition. That includes plural marriage. As long as everyone consents, it is a victimless crime.

No, prohibition would be disallowing homosexuality all together. For the government to recodnize gay marriages is something totally different. And why would you say something about a victimless crime? The argument being made is that its immoral, not a criminal act. I'm confused.

Mays,

By that logic, divorce (which is also immoral) should also be illegal. Why should the government condone or recognize something immoral like divorce?

But that's totally different. If we're speaking biblically here, there are instances in the Bible that allow for divorce. The real question here is where do we draw the line? Adultery is immoral but you can't get thrown in jail for it, nor does anyone care if one commits adultery (excluding the spouse). The line is being pushed, and I believe its farther than our society is willing to go. That's like saying the right to bear arms should be our right, but that doesn't mean we should all be toting nuclear weapons around with us. Make sense? Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but I believe that allowing gay marriage would only further the destruction of our society. I think its sad. :(

Ravenwood, I'm not a troll or a bigot and usually agree with much of what you say. I don't mean to say that all gays are pedophiles, but certainly some are. I read an article by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council and it makes me believe that pedophilia occurs at a far higher rate per capita in the male gay population than in the male heterosexual population. I'll email it to you and if you have time you can comment on it.

I just have a similar feeling about permitting gays to be Boy Scout Leaders. It will attract that segment of the gay population that are pedophiles. Having two newly joined scouts of my own makes me sensitive to the issue. The first thing the scouts want a parent to do is discuss the possibility of sexual abuse with their son. I felt I was robbing my boys of some of their innocence by talking with them about such disgusting things at the tender ages of 7 and 9, but the alternative was worse. At least they're forearmed with the knowledge that there are people like that in the world and know that it is ok to tell an adult NO!

Apox,

I actually agree with you on the Boy Scout thing. I was a scout, and agree that they have the right, and should exercise that right of not permitting homosexuals to be scout masters. But that has nothing to do with the issue.

First of all the Boy Scouts is a private organization. A private organization not permitting someone to join is altogether different than a government not recognizing the rights and privileges of an entire segment of society.

Bigot may have been awfully strong, but please reread what you have written. "it makes me believe that pedophilia occurs at a far higher rate per capita in the male gay population than in the male heterosexual population."

Now replace "pedophilia" with "violent crime", "gay" with "black" and "heterosexual" with "white". Now imagine trying to keep black people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms because statistics make you believe "that violent crime occurs at a far higher rate per capita in the black male population than in the white male population."

This may be one that we have to agree to disagree on.

On your blacks and guns anology, I don't believe it is a fair one. We're not talking about taking a right away from anyone. If blacks had never been able to have CCW permits, the fact that they comprise 12% of the population yet commit 50% of violent crime, might certainly give me pause if judicial activists suddenly decreed they be able to carry concealed.

On the other hand, I'm all for allowing gays to have any part of the so-called marriage perks they want, especially the marriage penalty with the IRS. Either give them any benefits married people currently get or take these benefits away from married people. The only exception should be adoption. You don't need a marriage certificate to form a lifelong commitment with someone.

You can't just arbitrarily change an institution as profound and as old as marriage and not have ramifications with society. If nothing else, by allowing gays to marry, the government condones homosexual behavior, long considered deviant by mankind. Would you teach your own children deviant sexual behavior and encourage them to experiment with it? I wouldn't and don't want the government to do it either.

"Either give them any benefits married people currently get or take these benefits away from married people."

Isn't that what we are talking about? I doubt we'll be taking away perks from married people any time soon, so lets give those perks to gays who form a "civil union". Those perks may include higher taxes, but they also include inheritance, medical benefits, etc..