Same feeling here in the US. Conservatives want limited government and more individual rights, except when it comes to marriage and sexuality. It's completely ludicrous.

@ 2ndWhiteLine

*Some* conservatives. I am one of those exceptions.

I have no personal opinion on gay marriage. Frankly, the economic issues are thousands of times more important.

However, there is no constitutional basis for gay marriage. The 14th Amendment does *not* guarantee gay marriage.

2ndWhiteLine: Thank you.

@Gunfighter: "I have no personal opinion on gay marriage. Frankly, the economic issues are thousands of times more important."

What economic issues do you mean? Thanks.

Glad to hear you're one of the exceptions. One of my local Republican NY state senators is also an exception and helped pass gay marriage legislation here recently. Unfortunately, those conservatives in DC are still stuck in the dark ages.

How can you have no opinion on gay marriage? What does that even mean?

Gay marriage (along with contraception coverage, right to work laws, immigration, and the like) are social wedge issues being used by the GOP this election to steer media coverage and public attention away from the fact that they have no clear plan to improve our economy other than "cut everything" and "fuck Obama."

i agree with no opinion on gay marriage. it's a distractionary issue. those in power have to come up with all this bs to make you think you are in control of your government and have a say in who gets elected, when really on the important issues it makes almost no difference which of the puppets get in.

if i were forced to have an opinion i would say the government should have nothing to do with marriage. if people want to formalize their relationships in a church or whatever, that's fine. it shouldn't be a political issue.

Personally, I have too little understanding in the economic models or faith in the politicians to take the correct measure to vote with much weight on economic issues.

Social issues are much easier to vote on so I don't mind the concept of a party basing their campaign largely on social issues. Obviously, I do have an issue with when it's the American Republic party.

Fucking hilarious. since "marriage" is, generally speaking, a "religious" institution, it's pretty fucking hilarious when people that are generally NOT religious....well, at least dismiss religious institutions....want to adopt a religious concept.

Fuck off, homos. Be satisfied with the tax benefits of "civil unions" and go the fuck away. We are TIRED TO DEATH of you putting your bedroom habits in our face! Are not you the same crowd that says government has no place in the bedroom????

God damn....

Stating that something "isn't written into the Constitution" does not justify a claim that we cannot or ought not find a way to legislate on it. Note the presence of Federal laws in extra-Constitutional documents (although these are subject to dismissal if they are found to violate the Constitution in any way) and the Constitutional amendment procedure.

The question is not whether the Constitution of the United States of America currently supports granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Constitution can be re-written to make this question absolutely clear if need be. The question is a moral/social, not legal one: whether we ought to sanction such a union legally, and what the ramifications of that may be.

My opinion on this, for those who might care, is pretty simple. Based on my observations of human interactions, my experience, human psychology, group interactions, and what I have contemplated, love is hard to find. I am talking about deep binding love. I am talking about finding someone who understands you as much as any one person can understand another. To find someone who cares for you as much as you care for them is rare. If you find that one person, stay with them. Not much else matters, not their race, their religion, their sex, their wealth or lack thereof. Marriage is nothing more than a symbolism of that relationship.The government should have no say whatsoever in that symbolism as it is between those two human beings. There are lots of things the government needs to do such as making sure everyone has food, housing, healthcare, the basic necessities; it is an utter waste of time and outside their jurisdiction to decide on this issue. Whether the government has the right to reward gay couples financially is a debatable issue, and one I find to be minor and not worth considering.

"We are TIRED TO DEATH of you putting your bedroom habits in our face!"

We are TIRED TO DEATH of having bedroom habits regulated and perceived as unequal.

No, bitch (i.e. 2ndwhiteline) don't tell the government to stay out of bedrooms, and then CONSTANTLY have to tell us what orifice you are fucking!

What gives government the right to say what homosexuals can or cannot do in relation to heterosexuals?

Do heterosexual CONSTANTLY have to post shit about who or how they are fucking? Why do fucking fags have to CONSTANTLY inject sexual behavior into EVERY aspect of life!!

If they pay too much for bananas at Krogers, they claim it is becaus they are fags. it's fucking tiring....

Well put, Zultar. It's all symbolic and has no impact on anybody on a personal level outside of the relationship.

2ndwhite....why don't yo ulook upa few laws. in fact, it is often illegal to have sex outside of marriage, strictly, legally speaking.

Bolshoi, is that another conspiracy theory I hear???

In Michigan, adultery is considered a felony and could result in life imprisonment.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/adultery_could_carry_life_sentence_in_michigan/

Of course, that is entirely beside the point of gay marriage.

Weirdly, Bolshoi's post on this thread is the most sensible so far...

krellin, two things. One, I don't think that anyone is talking about religious marriage, but civil marriage. Of course churches should not be forced to perform gender neutral marriage if it goes against their religion. I'm talking about legislation. Church and state must be separate. Two, what goes on in the bedroom has nothing to do with wanting gender neutral marriage. I'm not saying "I want the government to recognise my right to suck cock!", they already do (sadly some governments don't, but that is a completely separate issue). I'm talking about my choice of life partner, who I want to live with and share my life with, etc. Sex is only a small, and private, part of it. The "separate but equal" system of registered partnership makes a lot of gay people feel like second class citizens, excluded from an institution that is purely judicial. I'm talking in general international terms here, since I don't know anything about the US constitution, nor do I care about state/federal rights.

Krellin, for the ignorant douchnozel he is, was actually on to something with the first part of his post.

Marriage, as it is currently constructed, is an archaic institution. The government should have no hand in marriage. In which case, let the religious loonies regulate it however they like.

Civil union, as a pragmatic solution to all the issues that come with raising a family, should be the only thing the government has a hand in.

Also, Krellin, if you look into your trusty anatomy book, you'll see that women do, in fact, have the same orifices that that men bugger each other in.

Actually it's illegal to have sex, in a lot of states,outside of the missionary position. Sodomy is considered anything that isn't the missionary. Think about that next time you want a bj from your wife.

That being said who the hell cares what another person does in their bedroom with a legal consenting adult. The government needs to keep it's nose out of the bedroom and focus on the important things like the economy.

Also, there are faiths where same sex marriage is welcome. So, before you bring religion into a debate remember not just the Judeo-Christian faith is represented in the US.

I am another conservative. While I grant that according to most monotheistic religions, relgions believe that marraige is between a man and a woman, I also grant that the dark ages, as 2ndWhiteLine so aptly described DC, were primarily caused by the same set of relgious values that in essence ban gay marraige. It wasn't until the enlightenment that people realized that many of the facets of existence, that were labeled as "miracles of God," could be easily quantified by us mere mortals by use of logic and science.

At the time, logic and science were thought by the church (in this case the Catholic church was the main relgious force of the era and this is not meant as a bashing of the church in any way) to be evil and were banned with all mental and physical force possible. Eventually, after years and years of conflict, the church accepted that some parts of the Almighty's master plan can be figured out by those that He created. So, science, to a certain degree, was accepted.

To that end, should not other parts of religous context be viewed with more of an open mind?

I personally am a supporter of gay marraige. To deny homosexuals the right to marry the one they love means that I deny two of my best friends the right to be married. Part of loving all of creation is being compassionate.

If God made us in His "image," then by following the symbolic meaning behind it, He has given us the potential for omnipotence. Obviously, that is not exactly where we are going with this. According to the Bible, God allowed us to choose our own fate by eating the fruit (I blame women for the reason why we are not in Eden, but that is a different argument). So, we have the right to choose our own destiny, which means that every individual can make choices to discern their own future.

To that end, how can someone else have the right to choose how we live our lives? It should be solely up to the person to decide who they want to marry, man or woman.

I'm pretty sure that if the United States government ever permanently passes a pro-gay marraige bill, it will not truly be to support gay marraige, but to say to the rest of the world "We let our gays marry. What the Fuck have YOU done lately?"

(Quote partially borrowed from the movie "Wanted")

krellin: ' since "marriage" is, generally speaking, a "religious" institution, it's pretty fucking hilarious when people that are generally NOT religious....well, at least dismiss religious institutions....want to adopt a religious concept. '

Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is regulated and licensed by the state - churches sanction marriage under license, just like everyone else.

If marriage is a religious ceremony then isn't it time a gay church was setup to supply the increasing demand for gay marriages?

The government can fuck off, and will still be required to protect the freedom of religion of it's citizens... (that may not be the case in the theocracy that is the United Kingdom, where the head of state is also the head of the state religion, but i think it may be the case in the United States...)

if you believe that 'all men were created equal' then the law should treat them equally, and that requires the law to either recognise gay marriage or stop recognising straight marriage. Fairly simple

@'Fuck off, homos. Be satisfied with the tax benefits of "civil unions" and go the fuck away.' If you wish to accept civil union then that's fine, you can have a civil union and get your tax benefits. Simple as.

I'm glad orthaic simplified my verbose novel....sorry guys...

You guys. Krellin is just trolling, so just ignore him.

As far as I am concerned, the only way I think gay marriage should be disallowed is if marriage was exclusively a religious matter which it is obviously not. So, until that happens gays should be allowed to be married from an equality standpoint.

"You guys. Krellin is just trolling, so just ignore him."

I appreciate that to a certain degree - obviously he does not make his points the way he does because he wants to engage in a serious, intellectual discourse.

However, trash and misinformation shouldn't always be ignored. It is important to deal with misinformation immediately.

Example, people in Europe always think it's better just to ignore Republican idiot candidates (often the whole field) because they're just trash-talking. Then suddenly one becomes President and you realise ignoring the problem was the wrong idea. Misinformation should be engaged because at the very least other people won't assimilate the trash-talker's trash. More specifically, some poor sap might go away thinking krellin has made a valid point (which sometimes he actually can do) and in this instance it was worth engaging with his comments to make sure that didn't happen.