General

@ibrahim65432 I think that there's more Protestants than Catholics here...

[quote=ibrahim65432]None
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
http://www.stopgeek.com/top-10-reasons-gay-marriage-should-be-illegal.html
http://10cities10years.com/2011/04/28/arguments-against-gay-marriage-addendum/

There is no reason why same sex marriage should be allowed. And this is America, a Catholic country. It is forbidden for them to marry the same gender person. If they do they get punished.[/quote]
When trolling, it is best to use per-verified material instead of a rushed one
Check out your 3rd link and do your homework properly next time

[quote=ibrahim65432]None
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
http://www.stopgeek.com/top-10-reasons-gay-marriage-should-be-illegal.html
http://10cities10years.com/2011/04/28/arguments-against-gay-marriage-addendum/

There is no reason why same sex marriage should be allowed. And this is America, a Catholic country. It is forbidden for them to marry the same gender person. If they do they get punished.[/quote]

Um, last I checked, America is a [b]secular[/b] nation, meaning it has no official state religion (which is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights forbid). Our country cannot have an official religion (while our legal documents have made no mention whatsoever about separation of church and state). And to me, deciding on gay marriage belongs to the states to decide, it shouldn't be a federal law or anything. Making such an issue a federal matter generalizes it too much imo, so leaving it to states to decide on whether to allow gay marriage is definitely closer in line with what the people in the region demand.

[quote=ibrahim65432]None
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
http://www.stopgeek.com/top-10-reasons-gay-marriage-should-be-illegal.html
http://10cities10years.com/2011/04/28/arguments-against-gay-marriage-addendum/

There is no reason why same sex marriage should be allowed. And this is America, a Catholic country. It is forbidden for them to marry the same gender person. If they do they get punished.[/quote]

Supremist
How dare you call yourself an American.

None
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
http://www.stopgeek.com/top-10-reasons-gay-marriage-should-be-illegal.html
http://10cities10years.com/2011/04/28/arguments-against-gay-marriage-addendum/

There is no reason why same sex marriage should be allowed. And this is America, a Catholic country. It is forbidden for them to marry the same gender person. If they do they get punished.

[quote=GreatRomantic]@xfighter1188: I never said anything about "Monetary benefits".[/quote]
By monetary benefits i presume he meant anything that protects each-other
-Extension of medical care over your partner
-Tax deduction merging
-Bonus merging
-etc

The sacredness of marriage was ruined when most marriages in the US end in divorce and Kim Kardashian's 15 second marriage.

@xfighter1188: I never said anything about "Monetary benefits".
@pokefriends you are correct, but you know as well as I do that if we argue using religious views, we're going to use Mainstream religious views, thus making them look Superior to other religious/philosphical frames. But we live in a nation where diversity is accepted and encouraged. If we use religion as a backing to influence laws for the NATION, then we would be exluding the minorities of this country, and this ultimately leads to supremecy for the Christians and discrimination towards minorities.

And you also know as well as I that if you were to use the Bible as SUPPORT for arguments in front of the Supreme Court...you would NOT have a very strong argument on your side. Marriage isn't a state thing; it's a UNIVERSAL/NATIONAL thing. The decision of the Supreme Court is absolute over all other courts. And yes, of course the Justices may be "bias", but they understand the system enough to tell themselves between right and wrong. If bias had prevailed, then blacks would still be suppressed in this nation like they were decades/centuries ago. But because CULTURE changes, so do views. The culture [NEW GENERATIONS] are becoming more liberal. It's only a matter of time before the prohibition of same-sex marriage is declared unconstiutional by the Supreme Court.

[quote=GreatRomantic]1. Unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriage by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause
2. Marriage Benefits --- if hetero couples get these special benefits, what about homo couples? By virtue of the Equal Protection Clause and is discriminatory towards homo couples
3. There are no drawbacks to same-sex marriage....it would just be the same "marriage" any straight couple would enjoy ---> but the religious community doesn't approve of it and try to intervene, saying "NO! THAT'S NOT WHAT MARRIAGE IS! THE BIBLE SAYS..."
You can't use religious arguments in a court of law ---- separation of church and state, thus making religious arguments invalid
*and if judges do allow for religious arguments ----- the judge is being discriminatory in favor of straights ---> unconstitutional

When you argue point [3], you have to talk about redefining "marriage" because obviously Marriage is inclusive to both the Church and the State, but we live in a secular nation, so you must argue in favor of the power of the law winning over the basis of religion in regards to Marriage.[/quote]

I've gone through several U.S federal documents, mainly the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and [b]nowhere[/b] have I found anything detailing the "separation of church and state" so technically you can use religious arguments in a court of law. And there should be no assuming the judge would be discriminatory towards gays either. The judge could easily be discriminatory in favor of straights as (s)he could be discriminatory in favor of gays. I have the firm belief that bias exists everywhere, even in a court of law. The judge has it, and so does the jury. If a black man kills a white man, oh it's just another killing. If a white man kills a black man, all of a sudden, it's a racial crime according to society, and the jury might judge harder and the judge might issue a harsher punishment. Not to mention, I feel alot of judges have agendas they want to fill, and passing court cases according to their agenda is in their best interest.

[quote=xfighter1188]If marriage is all about the monetary benefits, what's stopping people from using your reasoning to get married to their sofa and enjoying the monetary benefits[/quote]
What is marriage about then?
What monetary benefit would the sofa enjoy?

[quote=GreatRomantic]1. Unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriage by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause
2. Marriage Benefits --- if hetero couples get these special benefits, what about homo couples? By virtue of the Equal Protection Clause and is discriminatory towards homo couples
3. There are no drawbacks to same-sex marriage....it would just be the same "marriage" any straight couple would enjoy ---> but the religious community doesn't approve of it and try to intervene, saying "NO! THAT'S NOT WHAT MARRIAGE IS! THE BIBLE SAYS..."
You can't use religious arguments in a court of law ---- separation of church and state, thus making religious arguments invalid
*and if judges do allow for religious arguments ----- the judge is being discriminatory in favor of straights ---> unconstitutional

When you argue point [3], you have to talk about redefining "marriage" because obviously Marriage is inclusive to both the Church and the State, but we live in a secular nation, so you must argue in favor of the power of the law winning over the basis of religion in regards to Marriage.[/quote]

If marriage is all about the monetary benefits, what's stopping people from using your reasoning to get married to their sofa and enjoying the monetary benefits

something along the lines of equality and sexual discrimination
but this is your hmw so you should do it mainly by yourself..

to piss off conservatives and hard-core mini jesus'.

[quote=civfanatics]@xfighter1188 If your true love is an animal, plant, or even an inanimate object, then I guess so. [/quote]

well thats a bit... messed up?

1. Unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriage by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause
2. Marriage Benefits --- if hetero couples get these special benefits, what about homo couples? By virtue of the Equal Protection Clause and is discriminatory towards homo couples
3. There are no drawbacks to same-sex marriage....it would just be the same "marriage" any straight couple would enjoy ---> but the religious community doesn't approve of it and try to intervene, saying "NO! THAT'S NOT WHAT MARRIAGE IS! THE BIBLE SAYS..."
You can't use religious arguments in a court of law ---- separation of church and state, thus making religious arguments invalid
*and if judges do allow for religious arguments ----- the judge is being discriminatory in favor of straights ---> unconstitutional

When you argue point [3], you have to talk about redefining "marriage" because obviously Marriage is inclusive to both the Church and the State, but we live in a secular nation, so you must argue in favor of the power of the law winning over the basis of religion in regards to Marriage.

@xfighter1188 If your true love is an animal, plant, or even an inanimate object, then I guess so.

[quote=civfanatics]1. People should have equal rights
2. People should be able to marry their true loves
3. I'm homosexual[/quote]

In no way trying to start a war, but wouldn't your reasons justify marriage with animals and essentially anything a human could possibly find attractive

1. People should have equal rights
2. People should be able to marry their true loves
3. I'm homosexual

Give me 3 reasons why different-Sex Marriage should be allowed

The better question is what makes legitimate a ban on same-sex marriage?

Well for one, couples who can't get married don't share the same benefits as couples who are married. I think mostly for financial situations, not sure about the rest.

1) it should be allowed so that they don't make kids, so over the time, their sick gay gene will be extinct thanks to natural selection.
2) the government will have the list of gay people so that when they decide to holocaust them, they have the list.
3) ... ran out of ideas.

Because there are benefits to marriage. Financial benefits. And everyone should be able to have those benefits when and with who they please. It is not true that all children end up different cause of same sex parents. People should have the right to marry the person they love

Go to Google Scholar. Type like "ancient marriage", "nonreligious marriage", "history of marriage", and "etc".
Also use http://www.easybib.com/ to do MLA format citations, you can download a template of MLA format for word doc from the Microsoft office site if you're lazy

1)its discrimination
2)most of the discrimination comes from relgion, constitution:seperation of church and state
3)yolo

Because no matter whether the parents are of the same sex or not, they both have the same and equal amount of ability to care for a child as anyone else.

If there is no gay marriages then all the gay guys will marry our straight ladies and there will be less of them for me. >.<
So if gay guys marry another gay guy that means there is more single straight ladies for me <3

No proven facts that children raised by different sex couple is "better"
In America everybody should have equal rights, including people with different orientations
you can't fight love (dumbledore anyone)

1. It's your choice
2. Who cares what goes on in your bedroom
3. It depends on where you live