Because it would mean equal rights for the 2 types of relationships? Iff there was a ceiling on benefits in a way that polygamy could not be easily abused then it would be equal to these 2 relationships then I would consider it ok for the government to recognize this.

Isn't it possible to abuse marriage already? Hell, the only way to stop the abuse of benefits would be to remove the benefits. Why are there benefits to marry anyway? Is it to build a family? If so, then why should homosexuals receive them anyway?
I still don't see how legalizing gay marriage benefits the government. Equal rights for the two types of relationship might benefit the homosexuals who want to marry, but what will it do for the government?

Yes, God is the reason things are the way they are now. We dont have a thing called free will. If homosexuality is a genetic issue that some are born with I guess God must have intended for it to be so. Just like cancer, AIDS, leprosy, damn the list goes on and on. Thing is there is something in genitics called a "point mutation" and somewhere along the line it happened. Why would evil people be allowed to exist? Why do natural disasters happen? Why do people die? Why are there wars? Why are there sickneses? God does not, nor will ever simply make something cease to exist simply because we think or know its wrong. We are responsable for our OWN actions, not God.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I CONCEDED POINT 2!!!!!

NJforever.......good for you.
Anyway.

Reply #73 By: Chemicalkinetics - 11/6/2004 10:00:02 PM I don't care for children. They should just stop whining and grow up faster. Children from other countries are shot at and burned to death.

I imagine if it were you, you may have a different opinon. Besides what the hell does children "whining" and growing up have to do with my point?

" Hell, the only way to stop the abuse of benefits would be to remove the benefits."

This is true. I would support this action or several other ones.

1.Stopping government from using the term marriage altogether and applying the term civil union to all these government recognized unions(heterosexual or homosexual). (Probably the most sensible opinion IMO)
2. Civil Unions For Gays. Marriage for Straights. (Though I really don't see the need to be so repetitive in the name of preserving a word)
3. Remove the benefits. (Not many people would be happy but hey it's equality)
4. Marriage for gays. (75% of people would be raising hell and therefore probably the worst option)

I am not so much arguing for Gay Marriage as I am trying to understand why the vicious and unwavering yet silent reason against it.

What I am saying is regulate the use of the word when a government recognizes these unions.

why not simply use civil unions or partnership for both straight and gay and leave "marriage" for the altar?

I want to let everyone know that I am a 23 year old straight female....

that you had to add this means that it is a big deal unfortunately.

" why not simply use civil unions or partnership for both straight and gay and leave "marriage" for the altar?"

That's what I was saying. I said leave marriage for it's religous purposes and leave it out of laws.

I see my blog is now popular thanks to the homophobic conservatives!

hi alison,

like you i am a college educated 23 year old straight female. i am taking solace in the hope that once the people who are in george bush's generation are retired, you and i and our peers (the boomer's children, basically) will make the rules.

Reply #83 By: aliciacw AT hotmail dot cizom (Anonymous) - 11/8/2004 10:10:19 PM hi alison, like you i am a college educated 23 year old straight female. i am taking solace in the hope that once the people who are in george bush's generation are retired, you and i and our peers (the boomer's children, basically) will make the rules.

You need to come to grips with something. Just because we retire does NOT mean that we stop voting. So don't count on making ANY rules any time soon.

I see my blog is now popular thanks to the homophobic conservatives!

Ah, how enlightened. To disagree with your point of view is to be homophobic.

hi alison, like you i am a college educated 23 year old straight female. i am taking solace in the hope that once the people who are in george bush's generation are retired, you and i and our peers (the boomer's children, basically) will make the rules.

Not really. Rather you'll be working for boomer children such as myself who are conservative.   I think you're going to find the real world to be quite jarring.

amen alicia!

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Just because they have a different preference doesn't mean they should be treated any differently.