What? What is being taken from them? I have yet to have seen any logical explanation.

Furthermore, in cultures throughout the world same-sex marriages have always existed. Nothing is being redefined.

My diplomatic course of action is mainly due to my situation: my co-workers, my social life and my home life.

I have to have some semblance of a life here and being a hard-nosed homo (read: radical) could cost me dearly. That’s why I’m a little more conciliatory.

I meant to quote this by qIII:

What an ugly and degrading view of the matter. That would only be true if heterosexual marriage had no other value to heterosexuals than the fact that it does not include homosexuals.

I was not stating your views. I was paraphrasing Quo III’s views and pointing out how ridiculous they are.

Your notion that heterosexuals base the value of their marriage upon whether gays can get one is both insulting to most heterosexuals and to the institution of marriage itself.

That is a complete distortion of what I side.

You made the statement of what You would loose, when the point was that you would loose nothing you don’t already have other than a sanctomonious sense of superiority you use to degrade, belittle and devalue same sex relationships.

If it did, it would be entitled to regulate against inter-faith marriages, require that no one could be recognized as being married if they were not married in a church, synagogue, or temple, and would not allow you to be married by a justice of the piece, a ship captain, or any other individual authorized to perform a marriage that isn’t a religious cleric.

If the government bestowed the sacramental many of marriage the only valid marriage would be one performed with the sacramental blessings.

Also, the constitution forbids the government to make religious endorsements.

Your notion that heterosexuals base the value of their marriage upon whether gays can get one is both insulting to most heterosexuals and to the institution of marriage itself.

You wrote, “The only thing you loose by allowing gay marriages to be recognized by a civil government is your sense of heterosuperiotity.”

What an ugly and degrading view of the matter. That would only be true if heterosexual marriage had no other value to heterosexuals than the fact that it does not include homosexuals.

It would be more reasonable to assume that turning marriage into something other than a union between men and women is wrong in itself to many heterosexuals, and that its wrongness is partly independent of fact that that this measure is intended to benefit homosexuals.