Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. To me, this is obvious. They are Americans protected by the Constitution, which gives each American equal rights. Our society has built up finding a partner to spend the rest of your life with as one of the main means of finding happiness, and denying homosexuals this right denies them their pursuit of happiness. In addition to this, denying them the ability to marry and all the rights and benefits that come with marriage implies that they are second-class citizens, that they are somehow lower than the rest of Americans because of who they are. They are fine to watch on television, just as long as they don’t have equal rights. What an absolute joke.

I am so sick of the argument that homosexuality is a choice. I just spent a couple minutes searching through LexisNexis Academic and JSTORE and studies showing that homosexuality is not a choice are seemingly infinite. With humans and animals, sexual preference is often fixed at birth. Over 450 species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior (The Monitor). Man is an animal. Whether it is a gene, the hypothalamus, or any other number of things, homosexuals are who they are. If you want more proof that homosexuality is not a choice, think of it this way: Does it make someone’s life easier to “choose” homosexuality? If it’s a choice, why do so many repressed fundamentalists who a oppose gay marriage get busted engaging in homosexual activity?

this is a funny approach coming from a conservative, you do know that its thel iberals spearheading equality for homosexuals..

What is marriage?

It is basically a vow to be with one person (well... in some cultures that can be one of many persons) for the rest of life. That is the standard view of it anyways. It is culturally and religiously defined.

Oh, and now government has abused it for things like taxes. In fact, government's involvement isn't to allow marriage, it is to control it.

I say that government just gets out of the marriage business all together.

How is that for conservatism for you?

Marriage is confused somewhere between a religious definition and a social institution definition.

Depending on the religion, Homosexual marriage is impossible as it is simply not marriage in the context of homosexuality.

The problem is that the Social Institution derived from these various religious traditions remains tied in certain portions, even when not everyone who makes use of the institution is required to likewise partake of the religion still affecting the institution. Obviously discrepancies arise in this ill fitting situation.

The state should either connect the religious bit fully with the social institution to preempt confusion and provide a social alternative, or separate the religious version from the social version entirely.

Which either violates the policy of separating church and state, or causes more problems (i.e. privacy, unequal taxation, even more ways to violate rights, etc.)

And therefor the suggestion to remove government from the equation of marriage. The only thing that suggestion would harm is the tax code... it might rip out a page of the 16 thousand someodd pages already in it... But that is another topic all together.

Honestly, shoot me down here... what is a good reason why government should be involved in marriage in the first place?

Exactly, the problem is that though Marriage is a STATE based convention it is currently viewed by any member of the religious community as a RELIGIOUS based thing, which is why the whole Same sex marriage has all the problems.

Separation of state and church exists by the letter here, but not in actual execution of things. They're most definitely being confused here, causing a lot of drama.

The reason Marriage is a State-based institution to begin with, is in line with the same reason Birth Certificates are issued. Babies, Families, the building blocks of society.

I think we are on different pages here.

You are talking about society, I am talking about government.

There is absolutely no reason for government to even care about marriages. Right now they just use it for taxes and similar things like that. Birth certificates exist to keep records of the population, those are absolutely necessary for international records keeping and US census data (and to be more specific... age verification. The voting age must be verifiable.)

The institution of marriage has existed for centuries, way earlier than the US, therefor it cannot possibly be a state based convention.

I am proposing a further segregation of church and state by removing the state from the picture. Which, constitutionally speaking, is actually required thanks to the enumerated powers of congress. If any governmental body in the US wishes to control marriage it must be each individual state, not the federal government.

The problem with this reasoning is that the US government has disregarded the constitionally allowed (and disallowed) powers since at least the 1930's, therefor the constitution has become a "by practice novelty item" instead of a real defining document in terms of governmental policy.

I understood where you were coming from. I don't think what you are suggesting is a bad thing either.

I was just saying the original institution is tied to various governments due to it's usual standard role in the family unit. By and large the family unit is the foundation for a society as a whole.

The individual is the smallest unit in a society - Birth Certificates
The Pair is the next unit - Thus we have marriage certificates
The family unit finally, which have for most of the time been built on a pair

after that, it just keeps getting bigger, until you have cities and states.

My point, is that since marriages have traditionally represented the creation of a new potential family unit, they are of interest to the government, since the government's purpose is to govern a body of people/individuals.

marriage was once defined as the holy matrimony between a man and women, but marriage is becoming less regarded as a religious concept and with gay marriage, soon gender plays no role at all. im hoping that it doesnt play a role now.

marriage helps prevent polygamy and create more stable families.
im pretty sure that having a happy, (preferably) middle class stable family is the best pillar for growing a society based on industry and consumerism

marriage also allows for 2 incomes to join together as a net income and marriage is probably one of the reasons why couples can take out mortgages and banks can ensure that their combined income is more stable then a "fling".

marriage is important to society, since government has a part in running society then they would obviously stick their noses into the issue of marriage.

Ducky, i am a conservative, but i do not hate liberals. This is probably the only liberal side of me.