thats not why they want marriage approved... they want money from the government... if it was about love, this never would have been an issue

You're now a mind reader and are speaking for all gay people as to why they want to get married? Interesting.

Marriage was started prior to religion, I don't think it was religion but society that started it.

I'm against gay marriage, but I don't want them interfering in my life so I should not interfere in theirs. Quid pro qua. Or however you say it.....what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And yes money is involved. Gay couples have to pay enormous estate taxes if their lover dies. In all fairness, it's not fair.

Boy I hate being a liberal conservative.

Being able to get married to a life partner is not an "extra" right. Heterosexuals can do it and they get all the benefits afforded to a married couple. Gays can "get married" but if the law does not recognize that as a marriage, they are denied the benefits, and there are a lot of legal complications involved like the woman who was double taxed when her life time partner died.

I think group marriages should also be recognized. That way the wives who are not recognized as part of the marriage can't get money from welfare for her illegitimate children. Make the family support itself.

It's good to see a conservative who is thinking rationally about this.

Makes sense to me.

When you say you are "against gay marriage" I am curious why you would even say that. How does what other people do effect you in a negative way? Other than your own personal choice because you are not gay, why would you be 'against' something that does not effect you?

You seem to be conflicted because you know its not fair that gay couples have to pay double taxes when one of them dies. I don't quite know how that works or why but I'm sure there are other benefits to having your marriage partnership recognized by the state.

It is because of all the benefits of marriage given to heterosexuals that are denied to gay life partners that they want their marriage recognized.

Just think of the new business that lawyers will get when gay couples begin getting divorced. LOL

I say that so you'll understand how tough it is for me to say they should be allowed to marry and be given the same rights as other people with partners of consenting age.

Gottcha. Yep its hard for us old foggies to accept these kinds of ideas.

I am basically anti-marriage in general myself, but I can see why a couple would want to have their partnership recognized legally and given all of the benefits that comes with it, especially if you are going to spend your life living with them and sharing living expenses, homes, children etc.

Personally, I prefer staying single and independent, especially now that I am past the child rearing age.

But let the Gays have a legal marriage. Let them suffer like everyone else.

I nearly agree...I would prefer marriage so I can put my cold feet on someone's back!

don't be snide... if it wasn't about benefits, what would the issue be?

Don't be rude.

And yes, of course part of it is the benefits. It doesn't matter what reasons anyone gives you for gay people wanting to get married, though. You're going to find something to argue about.

In many states it is legal to marry your first cousin.

And I bet the anti-gay crowd is more ok with that than with gay people marrying each other.

First, a first-cousin marriage is not considered to be incestuous.

Second, I don't know anyone who is anti-gay, but I do know people who are anti-sin. People who seek to conform to the New Testament's teachings are confronted with the Apostle Paul's teaching about homosexual behavior. Paul taught that same-gender sexual activity was sinful.

thats backwards

welfare is needs based. any woman with children who has a need (based upon household income, not marital status) is eligible to receive some assistance to feed their children,,,

a relationship is a consentual interchange between two people

regardless of their gender, their age, their status in life,, it is how you RELATE TO EACH OTHER

MARRIAGE can be any relationship we choose to label a marriage

however STATE SUPPORTED marriage, is defined by the state based upon standards which the state chooses to support

up till now , that has been relationships between NON RELATED, ADULT, HETEROSEXUALS,,, who can often go on to produce future CITIZENS Which will also become the states concern

the state doesnt wish for siblings go create such citizens , although they still CAN, but the state wont encourage or support it because of concerns for potential genetic defects

the state doesnt wish to support ANY relationship people wish to have, not all relationships have ANY AFFECT on the state for them to have an interest in doing so

homosexual relationships will NEVER produce anything that is of concern for the state,,, therefore there is no incentive for them to support, encourage, or license it

..and none of that has ANY affect on people being with and loving whomever the hell they want to

its just a matter of forcing the culture to validate/support others choices,,,,,,which , in time, will most likely become successful as the LGBT platform gains more financial and political power,,,

Unmarried women who are sharing a husband in the Mormon faith who still practices it, and anyone else who does, find it easy to collect welfare assistance because of their legal unmarried status.

A man who wants to have three or four wives aught to be able to support them or pay child support or else keep it in his pants or stick to one wife.

Let's look at this issue from another angle.

When the U.S. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, the Act's conservative foes kept asking congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to force citizens to purchase health insurance.

When the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, did conservatives ask congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to regulate marriage? I do not know of any conservative who asked that.

Let's cut to the chase. The main reason why opponents of same-sex marriage are opponents is because their religions tell them that same-gender sexual activity is sinful. However, in the USA, it is unconstitutional to turn religious beliefs into civil laws.

What American opponents of same-sex marriage need to admit is that the freedom of religion stated in the 1st Amendment give people the right to not conform to religious teachings.

The question that I have is this:

Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents?

Apparently not....most illogical, but unfortunately, very human.