Well, there's Bush's ideal of true marriage shot to hell.

i would have to proclaim that i CAN agree with you.........yet, i do not (though i am not against it, per se).......my problem, as i can see it, is based on the observation that this country tries to be For-Its-People the best it can.........now, you got a problem:

A) the state/federal-government should not be subject to any kind of bias'; should be for its people; should protect a persons/groups rights; and should interpret the laws, Constitution, and statues, accordingly......
............that is, as it would seem, that the law should grant citizen rights, as people (public) is the main objective of such "law"....hence, gays have the right to petition, fight, and ultimately win, the right to marry (based on a democracy granting equality).......

the state/government should not be subject to any bias', including bias' based on moral/ethical principles; should protect the rights of its people/groups; should adhere to the princples of law; show validty in debates...........................
.............that is, as it would seem, that the law must grant a "publics" ideal.....despite how obscure (though a limit is obviously present).....now, the church and itz people are anti-gay-marriage, and the state must recognize this....now the term "marriage" is best understood as a bride and a groom married in a church (seriously, a terms best understood/relevant definition is absolute when it comes to law)....hence, marriage is best understood as a man and woman married by a church.....that is marriage......
..............now, man and woman can have a "court marrige" (civil union like thing (?)), as can homosexuals........the argument must stand that this is the only "marriage like" ability homosexuals have based on a democratic law of definitions/validty/and statues supporting a mass-majority ideal........

the problem ultimaley lies in the fact that there exists multiple arguments that married couples (which according to law, must be recognized as a couple untied under the eyes of the state and the church) have for state/federal rights than does a civil-union/court-married couple (which according to the law, must only be recognized by the state).............so how much should the church play into politics.........?

p.s. what i just said was another example of my "philosophical" inquiry....influenced by the cliche of substance abuse.....

i was told to go to a naval base and find a submarine naval person...for such an arrangement...funny enough he was on a submarine It seems he said someplace in washington would be the best place to meet them...they we're always looking for nice young...part time wives. At that time and age, i was tempted

i'm curious how many levels of homosexuality discussion we can have on this forum...several in serious discussion and politics, one up in general, one on philosophy and there's even been one started in religion...

and people say i'm fixated on christian witches...

I wish I would have done it earlier. I however stand to profit over 5,000 dollars total before I leave the army

remove governmental favoritism toward married people, that solves the problems of people trying to game the system with fake marriages
otherwise, a marriage contract is just a contract, and we have the precedent of prenuptials to indicate that one size does not fit all. i'd like my state to honor a wide variety of marriage contracts. from persian short term marriages to heinlein line marriages. each religion can have their lawyers draw up standard forms for their particular beliefs on the nature of marriage, as can secular groups, and rich folk will custom write theirs just like they do with their prenups now.
as long as people willingly sign up for the marriage on the terms they agree to, whoever or whatever they are, the only involvement of the state should be to allow the courts to enforce the contract

My only problem with this whole mess is that I believe I heard Bush wanted to lobby for "a definition of marriage" to be put into the Constitution. If it happens to be acceptable, what's going to stop other stuff from being put into there, too?

I see marriage as one of those states of being that two adults consent to. It could always be anything goes - it's simply up to the couple about what *they* want to do, not the rest of us. Well, the rest of us that sound silly telling them what they ought to do, anyway...

It's like I read in an article the other year... A couple wanted to have unique wedding bands instead of the traditional ones (Like diamond rings?). They went out to have some fun at a bar and the woman got hit on. After she told the idiot (her word, not mine) she was married, he said (complained more like) that he didn't notice a wedding ring. She retorted that her ring didn't have to be traditional. Wearing it made her happy and personally symbolized her union with her husband.
This gives rise to the thought that marriage and its definition was already in change and nobody noticed it yet.

ahhh, delightful to see you back...

i think they have noticed it, and it scares them...to accept that there's anything else besides what they've known...so naturally it's wrong, because it's not what they expect...then they try to call on their definition of god...by that story, jesus died for the sins already...why do they have to worry about it, it's not like they're nailed to a cross and suffering persecution for individual spiritual choices...

i just don't see how or why anyone can justify defining marriage...in cookie cutter terms...there's nothing cookie cutter about mine, but we're a happy, healthy family...my life demonstrates that, they know nothing about it...and it doesn't seem they care to...there's so much more horrible situations that could use their...energy...why waste it trying to take away a persons right to happiness?

idiot is being kind.

Thanks, babe. It's great to see you too!

I agree with that - facing the unknown terrifies "normal" people because they don't know it, but they also don't understand the purpose to the unknown lands is to freaking explore! That's where and how we got here today, people brave enough got abortion legal (though now it's being debated on again), shot rockets into space to find answers, create and grow better food, educate others about STDs, diseases ... etc. The list goes on.

They believe they can justify their definitons of marriage by what they already know... Yet every single person that's a part of a great family (even abusive homes), know differently. No one has the exact same family or even the "perfect" one. They just want to keep things in the "comfort zone" of their own safety and not rock the world.

But then... We need to rock the world. It's the only way to keep going, to get to a better future. Stagnation doesn't benefit anyone except those stupid enough to live in the past...