Which is a silly position. See:
“Same-sex marriage is marriage!”
“Same-sex marriage is marriage!”
“Same-sex marriage is marriage!”
*<Eldritch abomination materializes and devours Der Trihs>
*
And the seats in the back of the bus are the same as the seats in the front.
Well said! I don’t understand what gives us the right to deny someone something just because of their sexual preference? Personally, I believe that the institution of marriage sucks and it should be no business of the government to get involved in it in the first place. If we truly have a servant government then why is it that we need to seek “licenses” to do things from them?
Except they get there later. 
What specific reasons do you have for thinking that marriage sucks? What good do you think would be accomplished by getting rid of marriage as a legal entity?
Well, we all knew it was inevitable.
So why do we have people insisting that it’s the state, and not religion, that’s extraneous to marriage?
I believe that a marriage certificate does not provide anything of meaning or value to the relationship between two people. On the contrary it imposes undue restrictions.
Tax benefits? Pension benefits? Confidentiality in court proceedings? Inheritance laws? You seriously can’t see anything of meaning or value in a legal marriage?
I insist on marriage because I want for me and my partner of 11 years the exact same legal rights, protections and privileges as, for example, my brother and his wife. Others may have other reasons, but that is mine.
For tax and pension benefits, see http://www.losthorizons.com/
Court proceedings - Our courts are a sham. We need to move to common law and abolish our current admiralty based laws. But there are ways around this even in our current system without the need to procure a marriage license.
Inheritance laws - Again, there are ways around this in our current system without obtaining a marriage license. But do read up on ownership in allodial. The government should have no say in what you do with your assets.
Jeez, sorry I asked.
When I saw “admiralty-based laws” I knew before I even clicked the link. shakes head
It wasn’t meant in jest. If you want to grind your axe about how much of a sham the government and courts are, it’s beyond the scope of the simple question I asked.
Boy, members of this forum certainly are contentious! Well, ok then don’t ask me any more questions. No need to get your knickers in a bunch.
You now, when you’re participating in a forum calkled Great Debates, it is only reasonable to expect you to support your opinions with something vaguely resembling facts, especially when said opinions suggest that others not receive their legal rights, or have the legal rights they do have removed. If you want to just engage in mundane and pointless comments, well, we have a forum for that too.
No, just me.
Not wearing any, thanks.
But it was a very witty and stylish eldritch abomination.
(Hey, “abomination”, like in Leviticus: I wonder if there’s a connection…
Actually, at the Stonewall riots, gays were sprayed with fire hoses by the police. I haven’t seen any references to dog attacks, however. But since it became a major event, with calls to ‘all available officers’ to respond, that probably included some K-9 units. So police dogs were present, even if there are no records of them attacking people.
Not to mention the Nazi concentration camps, where gays were attacked, even killed by dogs. And where spraying prisoners with water as they stood outside in the winter was especially common for gay prisoners (because one of the slang german terms for gay men was ‘warm’ brother).
But we can’t expect actual facts to affect the original poster’s bigotry!