Just because its natural doesn't mean its right.

bcs some people dont want to accept change and bring up a load of crap about why its wrong when really they should be saying [quote]hey so long as it doesnt harm me and they dont shove their lifestyle down my throat why should i care[/quote]

So here's my opinion on this: I don't feel that "marriage" is a human right, but more of a human privilege. I mean marriage practically started as alliances and connections between two different groups of people, where love was rarely ever involved (before would basically be partnerships between two intimate partners in order to raise offspring). But then marriage got a little more intricate when it was person - to -person relationships with split assets. [spoiler]sometimes p-2-p-2-p for polygamous partners, which the term "one man, one woman" was actually intended to prevent; not homosexual relationships. [/spoiler] So with this "2 people, 1 body" marriage system, the two big bodies at the time (church and state) had to keep tallies on people, and so came Ceremonial Marriages, (union-ships acknowledged by the state and God). Later down on the road though, marriage started to separate into two things: Church Marriages and Common Law Marriages (although many types of marriages have already existed, even these, but were not as defined until then). These were split into what we perceive marriage today as (being the Church Marriage), and then basically signing a contract agreeing that two partners share assets (Common Law Marriage). Both are the same thing, but the CLM doesn't have the same flare, which people want. So to finally end this, "marriage" is a privilege by the church, since it belongs to them in a technical sense, and shouldn't be considered a "right" since the service can be offered in an alternative method. I don't have a problem with same-sex partners or their want to be seen in the eyes of the government as "in union", but I don't like how they try to do it by a method that should be exclusive to a certain group and the select group it chooses, when you can get the same exact thing by another, more convenient means. [spoiler]to put it into an analogy, it's like there's a plate of red frosted cupcakes and blue frosted cupcakes where the blue ones are reserved for a book club and the red ones are available to everyone, but then someone not from the book club comes along and demands a blue cupcake, even though they could have the red cupcake which is the same exact thing except for how it looks. Of course, if all the cupcakes are the same, then it really wouldn't matter, but the members of that book club joined the club with partial intent on the blue cupcakes which they feel is better since it's blue. [/spoiler] Should probably put in that I went to see my aunt marry her partner a few months ago without any concerns, so not close minded, but really it's just a title grab. TL;DR: people shouldn't claim things that aren't their own when they can get the same exact thing by other means. [spoiler]p.s. I probably wasted your time too since some of the stuff in here is just bold faced lies, except the aunt thing, what marriage use to be, and the first spoiler; you can look two of those things up.[/spoiler]

What if the generation, say 13 generations from now, are completely gay? I guess it's the last generation, end of all humanity, apocalypse, whatever you want to call it. You did take sex ed, right?

Just like its natural to kill, but that's illegal

Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, it's all the same so who cares who it's between, love is love.

Mainly because they should call it unions. It isn't marriage. I support them getting the same benefits (Honestly no one should get benefits for a private contract they make with someone else though. Thats the main issue behind all this).

You need more rights?

Is annoying and is everywhere. You can be gay but don't shove it down everyone's face

I feel like over the last two days, this subject has been beaten to death.

Change in any form is always opposed. Sometimes you need to force the change upon the Government- that has happened. The government is supposed to be the will of the people, and although I personally think to force it rather than letting it settle in is silly, it has happened either way. However, you must retain a balance. The private sector is NOT the government, and they do NOT have to represent the will of the people. They represent whatever the hell they want to, and if that means, for example, you cant get a wedding cake from them, well tough shit. The same would go for churches- if that particular one does not want to give you a marriage, that's their power. The Gov't still offers you one, and paying extravagant amounts of money (in my opinion) shouldn't change your relationship in any way. You can encourage them to allow it- maybe if they don't they can lose tax exempt status or something. But you never FORCE them. Forcing privately owned things to comply with the will of the people is not what we should be for, and it'll only bring problems down the road by angering those you force it upon. Change is always opposed, but Time makes all things change. Give them some time, some generations that will be taught to accept these things.

Because people hate change