Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to:
Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee; Appointment as guardian of a minor; Award of child custody in divorce proceedings; Beneficial owner status of corporate securities; Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses; Burial of service member's dependents; Certificates of occupation; Consent to post-mortem examination; Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases; Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property Criminal injuries compensation; Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee Disclosure of vital statistics records; Division of property after dissolution of marriage; Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation; Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments; Exemption from conveyance tax; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants; Funeral leave for government employees; Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes; Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates; Inheritance of land patents; Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; Legal status with partner’s children; Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts; Making partner medical decisions; Nonresident tuition deferential waiver; Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; Notice of probate proceedings; Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee; Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death; Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; Proof of business partnership; Public assistance from the Department of Human Services; Qualification at a facility for the elderly; Real property exemption from attachment or execution; Right of survivorship to custodial trust; Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate; Right to change names; Right to enter into pre-marital agreement; Right to file action for nonsupport; Right to inherit property; Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land; Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act; Right to support after divorce; Right to support from spouse; Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment; Rights by way of dour or courtesy; Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code; Sole interest in property; Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications; Spousal immigration benefits; Status of children; Support payments in divorce action; Tax relief for natural disaster losses; Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death; Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment; In vitro fertilization coverage; Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.
first off, i'd like to point out that you are sadly outnumbered. (That's usually a sign that you're wrong.)
again:
quote: And as far as i'm concerned you've proven yourself to be more of a waste to society just by display your lack of intelligence than 1 million gay couples. Reproduction is not the goal of society, it's the goal of the species and religion and marriage are not natural to our species. Marriage in no way hinders nor helps reproduction. The goals of society is to become more efficient, advanced, intelligent, peaceful, stable, and civilized. And a gay person can help with all these goals just as much as a hetero.
quote: There is also the health aspect of it. For example while in marriage, people have longer lifespans. homosexual 'marraige' works differently, as it only helps to shrink it.
Oh, but wait, homosexuals don't have institutional marriage, they only have ficticous, non-legal marriage. I will only say this one more time: don't compare apples and oranges, it's makes you look extremely stupid.
quote: What I mean by a living constitution is where a sentence will mean one thing on year and a decade later it'll mean something different.
k, first off, we've always had a living constitution, as was demonstrated by the supreme court case McCulloch v. Maryland back in the early 1800's which was just one of many examples where the supreme court interpreted the meaning of the constitution.
quote: Somehow, I don't think that dyng of is a benifit to society
Somehow, i don't think your existence is of benefit to society. I think we should start raising money to have you fixed.
And marriage is not the social foundation of society. the Social aspect of society existed long before the concept of religion. The indigenous people of africa and the amazon don't have institutionalized marriage yet their society lives and thrives without it.
quote:Institution - A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.
Now, how is extending marriage to gays going to threaten the "institution of marriage"?
Marriage should be about loving, supportive, nurturing relationships, and such relationships are not dependent on gender. Gay marriages will only strengthen and enrich the social concept of marriage.
quote: I am a young gay man who lives in Canada. Since gay marriage has become legal the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't ended. What has happened is I now enjoy the same rights and obligations if I ever choose to get married. To our friends down south, stay strong, eventually equality will prevail. Alan Trinacty Windsor, Ontario, Canada
You have yet give evidence to prove that extending marriage to homosexuals threatens society or the institution of marriage, and you have yet to do so because there is none.
I think i will just let these people speak for me:
quote: What does marriage have to do with the Bible, or the Scripture, or Jesus Christ? This may be news to some of you, but people of all religions get married, and so do agnostics and atheists who don't even believe in God. Even if Jesus, who was supposed to be all-forgiving, can't accept gay marriage, that doesn't mean the state cannot legally recognise it. The last time I checked, America was a secular state and its laws weren't simply an extension of Christ's teachings, as interpreted by religious hardliners. Alia Hameed Paris, France
quote: I find it deplorable that anyone who considers themselves a Christian to be against anything founded on two peole loving one another. Isn't that exactly what Jesus was trying to teach us? Legalizing gay marriage would be one more recognition that love conquers all. Kathleen Morrell Syracuse, N.Y.
quote: As a gay parent raising two children, I find it absurd that the Catholic Church will protect and hide child molesters, and the public upholds gangster rap as a freedom but will waste millions of dollars fighting against a union of two adults. The father of the two children I am raising has not filed taxes since 1997 and owes over $20,000 in child support and does nothing to assist in raising his three children, two of which were conceived out of wedlock by two different mothers. Nevertheless, I am the immoral one. Did Christ want Churches to build multimillion-dollar facilities for pure vanity's sake or did he want us to respect and take care of one another? R.L. Foley Kansas City, Mo.
quote: Yes, of course. When I think of the 50% divorce rate here in America, the homosexual community cannot possibly do worse. Sylvia Mastandrea New York, N.Y.
quote: am a church organist. I play for many church weddings a year. I listen time and time again to couples vowing to "love, honor, and cherish," knowing full well that at least 50% of them will break those vows. This isn't about sanctity of marriage. It's about the conservative vote. Perhaps the church should keep its nose out of legal contracts. And the government should stay out of religious rites. Jackson Hearn Houston, Texas
quote: Same-sex unions need to be legally recognized. When two people make a conscious choice to share their lives together, they need the socioeconomic advantages and protections extended to different-sex unions. This has nothing to do with morality but has everything to do with equality and fairness. Martha Dohm France
'I'm sure the Constitution wasn't amended until the 1900's. Of course it was. And the amendment process was laid out from the beginning, so what do you mean "the concept of a 'living constitution' wasn't invented until the early 1900's"? Maybe they didn't call it that before, but the concept was certainly there.'
What I mean by a living constitution is where a sentence will mean one thing on year and a decade later it'll mean something different.
For example, there is a passage in the Japanese constitution that says that Japan may not create any land, air, or sea forces. later it was interprated to meant that they can only make self defence forces. All this was done because people in the government decided that the words in the constitution suddenly meant something than what they said. --- 'infringe on gays' innate rights.'
As I have said before, marriage is an instutituion, and is not about idivual rights.
--- 'Second of all, if reproducing is the only way someone is a "benifit" to society, you sure have a twisted view on life.'
Yeah it's not like we need people to reprdouce in order to replenish the society </sarcasm> Now look, it's not just reproducition, but you do tend to downplay reproductive aspect of it.
There is also the health aspect of it. For example while in marriage, people have longer lifespans. homosexual 'marraige' works differently, as it only helps to shrink it.
(source: 6 - Advocate, 8/23. 7 - Doing It In the 90s, Univ. Toronto & Laval Univ., May 1993. 8 - Cameron P. et al. (1994) The longevity of homosexuals. Omega 29, 249-272.)
'The largest survey, involving over 13,000 homosexuals in 1994, reported that "coupled or married" gays reported the highest proportion of high risk sexual activity.6 The largest Canadian survey, involving more than 4,800 homosexuals, found the same.7 Engaging in medically dangerous activities is a significant factor in the expression of homosexual "love." Indeed, some evidence suggests that coupled homosexuals die earlier than "unmarried" homosexuals.8 '
Somehow, I don't think that dyng of is a benifit to society
--- 'Oh, it's just a quote that proves marriage is not the foundation of society. Really didn't need it though, because societies have been in existance long before the concept of marriage existed. I.e. the sumerians.'
First off all you quote show that food and labor is the economic foundation of society. Marriage is the social foundation of society. secondly, the sumerians had marriage.
quote: The rediculous concept of a 'living constitution' wasn't invented untill the early 1900's,
Oh yes, those silly historians forming the "ridiculous" idea of the "living constitution." Yes it was completely �ridiculous� to look at the fact that the constitution laid out rules on how it could legally be changed. Yes this document was meant to be static. And I guess it was �ridiculous� for them to look at the concept of judicial review as well
quote:The rediculous concept of a 'living constitution' wasn't invented untill the early 1900's,
I'm sure the Constitution wasn't amended until the 1900's. Of course it was. And the amendment process was laid out from the beginning, so what do you mean "the concept of a 'living constitution' wasn't invented until the early 1900's"? Maybe they didn't call it that before, but the concept was certainly there.
First off, again, it is "benefit" not "benifit." If you want us to think that you actually know something, please start by showing us that you can spell. Second of all, if reproducing is the only way someone is a "benifit" to society, you sure have a twisted view on life.
quote:Its a simple really, by declaring that marriage is no longer sacred, we are sending a message to the American people telling them marriage is no longer a sacred instituion, and we are opening a pandora's box, and once we decide that the different sex aspect of marriage is no longer sacred, what is to stop the government from declaring that the two-person, the unrelated, and the both human aspect of marriage from being no longer sacred.
If marriage is sooo sacred, why is the divorce rate so high?
Like everyone else is saying, your points either a) do not make sense, or b) are not points at all because they can be twisted around the other way.
Why do you hate gays so much? Why do you feel that they do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals? What do you see as a real "benifit to society?"
Oh, it's just a quote that proves marriage is not the foundation of society. Really didn't need it though, because societies have been in existance long before the concept of marriage existed. I.e. the sumerians.
quote: The establishment of any civilization, the manifestation of Evolution of culture, the entire delineation of power, is built upon the foundation of agricultural fecundity, whether directly upon it or distantly through the medium of trade. The application of continuous exertion to the soil in combination with resources, knowledges, tools, and past laboring, does achieve measures of subsistence far in excess of consumptive needs of those laboring, and is the production of the first and still foremost capital of humankind, the opportunity of those freed from immediate direct procurement of food to concentrate upon other pursuits. Rise of civilization thus depends upon an inducing of production of this capital, and, by exchanging for it as little as possible, upon subsequent appropriation of the surplus portion of that capital. The relation between those who are bound to the soil, supporting society, yet always subservient to the direction chosen by the establishment, and those who are released from this bondage, distinguishes the character of a particular civilization, as do the creations wrought upon that foundation, whether they be fabrication of a pyramid to monumentalize a pharaoh or existing nation states.
' As much as I hate the idealizing of our founding fathers, this was one of the most brilliant decisions by them. They recognized that society does change and therefore our system of government should be flexible. They recognized their limitations in foresight. Besides we are not messing with the basic Bill of Rights here'
The rediculous concept of a 'living constitution' wasn't invented untill the early 1900's, and although while we aren't talking about the bill of rights, we are the family, and that is the foundation of our civilization, and has been since the biginning of it. --- 'same difference. do you have to correct everything people say?'
The point of me correcting you is this, weddings do not imply government interference, while marriages do. A law banning same-sex marriages would not stop the right for people to set up same-sex wedddings.
quote: Anyways, what I meant was marriage will no longer be valued because it will have no real meaning. Its like on animal farm by George Orwell, and the seven comandments that were on the side of barn. Ultimately the laws and the principles of animalism had no real meaning to the society at animal farm, because Napoleon and Squeeler could alway change them. Likewise if we let the government change rules regaurding marriage, it'll be so expanded that it'll be meaningless.
Oh come on dude, this is a flat out a scramble tactic. Have the good grace to go down with the ship. Besides one of the good things about this country is the fact that rules CAN change. As much as I hate the idealizing of our founding fathers, this was one of the most brilliant decisions by them. They recognized that society does change and therefore our system of government should be flexible. They recognized their limitations in foresight. Besides we are not messing with the basic Bill of Rights here.
___The purpose of changing the ruling isn't to make the people who already have all the rights feel better about themselves, but the ones who don't. It's like a child telling another child, "I can't share my toys with you because if I do they will have koodies and I won't like them anymnore". It's about equality and fairness(something unknown to modern politics).
****, I didn't know that sacred only had the definition of holy, I thought it also had a secular definition. Anyways, what I meant was marriage will no longer be valued because it will have no real meaning. Its like on animal farm by George Orwell, and the seven comandments that were on the side of barn. Ultimately the laws and the principles of animalism had no real meaning to the society at animal farm, because Napoleon and Squeeler could alway change them. Likewise if we let the government change rules regaurding marriage, it'll be so expanded that it'll be meaningless.
Topics 
