[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

One, there is no discrimination. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same "rights." They can both marry a member of the opposite sex. If a straight man was able to marry a guy but not a homosexual, that would be discrimination. However, since both have the same priviledges, there is no discrimination.

You could look at it like that, though it seems to be a very tenuous justification. What about marrying the person that you love? There is discrimination there against same-sex couples.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Two, there is no legal right to marry. The Constitution does not guarantee you a right to marriage.

So what does it mean to get married? Being married grants the people certai rights, so why deny certain groups of people the rights of being married.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I don't particularly care about same sex relationships. I do NOT want them to rape the tradition of marriage, which has come from centuries, no, millenia, ago. If they want some variation, go ahead. But do not call it marriage.
And as I mentioned, you can love whoever you want, and there is no discrimination.

How is two people who love each other, forming a union called marriage, 'raping' the tradition of marriage? There is a discrimination, because those who can get married are granted certain rights and those who cannot or chose not to get married do not have the same rights.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Philip, a few points. These are not "rights" as I mentioned earlier. Marriage is a priviledge. Second, we have to draw the line somewhere. Next up is polygamy, then marriage to animals, and then children is up next. I have a moral code, and no matter how much society wants to break it down, I will stand my ground.

By whom is the privilidge afforded? What justifiable reason is there for granting the privilidge to one group and not another? On polygamy, I am fine with that, so long as all of the parties understand fully what they are entering into. Animals and children, no, because they cannot be said to fully understand the implications of the marriage.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children).

Only time will tell on that as there is currently no evidence either way. My personal opinion is that it will be difficult for the child, but will not 'scar them for life'. However, not allowing same-sex couples will not stop them from having children, it is already happening.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So then you do not need to allow gays to marry. Excellent point.

Not quite the point I was making. To clarify, marriage gives the couple certain rights, I was arguing that long term couples, whatever their gender, should not have to get married in order to prove their love and should automatically be given the same respect under law as married couples.