[Jayhuck]

Changing the constitution will not stop gay people form being in relationships, visible and public relationships that more and more are lasting longer than their straight counterparts. I would think it would be more important to look at the divorce rate in this country than to try and work what really is discrimination into the constitution, when it really won't change anything, but will have the potential to make so many more things in this country worse. If our constitution can ban a certain group from doing something, when it doesn't endanger anyone else, is a slippery slope on which I don't want to be.

[PreviouslyA-Lurker]

Homosexual "marriage" was legalized in one of the countries of northwestern Europe. During the average "marriage" there was an average of 10 outside sexual relationships, and the average "marriage" lasted less than 2 years.

Spreading disease through promiscuity does endanger others.

[Steel Wolf]

Changing the constitution will not stop gay people form being in relationships, visible and public relationships that more and more are lasting longer than their straight counterparts.

So let them be in visible, public relationships. Let them be more loving and lasting than hetero relationships.

I would think it would be more important to look at the divorce rate in this country than to try and work what really is discrimination into the constitution, when it really won't change anything, but will have the potential to make so many more things in this country worse.

Yes, dealing with the divorce rate is a far more important task, in the grand scheme of things, than trying to invent injustices out of the Constitution. The issue, which you have yet to address, is what this has to do with gay marriage?

If our constitution can ban a certain group from doing something, when it doesn't endanger anyone else, is a slippery slope on which I don't want to be.

We've already logged a good many miles on the good old slippery slope. That's largely why we're in this mess. Here's the deal, I'll ask again, and see what you come up with.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a social contract between two adults, and was created for the benefit of their children. It is an elevated status, to signify it's importance. It exists in all societies as a mechanism of survival.

Now, what need does society have in issuing the same status to a group of people who are unable to procreate, and whos' status is irrelevant to the survival of society? Why do they warrent a special protective contract from society when they have nothing to protect but their own individual desires?

[subterfuge]

"Changing the constitution will not stop gay people form being in relationships, visible and public relationships that more and more are lasting longer than their straight counterparts. "

You are so naive Jay. Here is an anecdote that explains how Homosexuals really are and this is not an isolated case.

My uncle who is in his mid-sixties is homosexual. He has lived with Thad for the last 30 years and is committed to the relationship, just like you say. Well, on his last trip down from Canada, where my uncle was the Dean of a large University, he informed the family that he and Thad still loved each other, but that each of them had a new young "friend" that lived with them.

Yes, the were so committed to each other that they agreed to each of them getting there very own, living sex-toys. They imported their young male-concubines from Asian countries and support them in every way. Just the four of them living in a wonderfully normal and supportive group grope.

And here is the kicker. They each have custom made t-shirts with their address printed on them so as to invite any and all who are interested in male homosexual relations. Come one, come all! It makes me sick and I'm ashamed a member of my family does this. And do note that I didn't call anyone a name or use ad hominem attacks as it so offends you for someone to judge another. Kind of like you judging FReepers, you know?

[PreviouslyA-Lurker]

Homosexuality, especially the way it is practiced by men, does endanger others, specifically those involved in it. You will find no medical doctor who will tell you it is healthy to put foreign objects INTO a persons anus and thereby force fecal matter back into the intestinal system.

Historically virginity till marriage has been a heterosexual ideal (though that may no longer be true by large portion of our current society). This has never been the case in the homosexual community.

[PreviouslyA-Lurker]

Another reason to believe that anal sex is not healthy:

A friend of mine worked as an editor for a doctors medical magazine. She edited an article that stated as fact that with extended abuse of the anus in anal sex the "victim" would eventually ruin the sphincter muscle thereby needing a bag to hold their feces.

Doesn't sound healthy to me...

[Petronski]

If our constitution can ban a certain group from doing something, when it doesn't endanger anyone else...

Oooh. Another lie.

[jimt]

Changing the constitution will not stop gay people form being in relationships, visible and public relationships...

That's certainly true. The question is, do homosexuals have the right to force others to approve of, accept and "celebrate" such relationships.

The libertarian answer is to get government out of the marriage business. Were that entirely done, I'd have no problem with homosexuals "marrying" or whatever they wanted to call it.

Of course, the libertarian solution also allows me to disapprove, not accept and condemn such relationships. I would also have the right to discriminate against those who shove unpleasant personal characteristics in my face - or even if I just didn't like them personally. Bar owners would be equally within their rights to put up "No Fags" or "No Breeders" signs.

But in the current situation, until we achieve a more libertarian society, allowing a fraction of 2% of the population to redefine a social institution of several thousand years standing is just plain silly.