Gay marriage question. serious answers only please.?

The defintion of discrimination is, denying a group the same rights or benifits as all the other groups simply because they are of that group. So why is not allowing gays to legally marry (out side of a church, because they can make their own rules) not discrimination?
About the only thing I can see not being enjoyed by a gay couple is health insurance benefits from one partner being employed and covering the other partner. Property in wills is already covered as is death wishes. Relatives can fight that will but so can a gay partner. Seems to come down to health insurance. Health insurance will become exorbitantly high if it is allowed as even many gays will tell you, the lifestyle is dangerous. Insurance companies do not want to cover dangerous behavior since they are there to make and take that being the bottom line.

Personally I don't care what you do if it does not affect me. If health insurance costs go up because gay marriage is allowed then it will affect me.
Because of the definition as it now exists for 'marriage'. It's between a man and a woman as it now stands. This is why polygamy is illegal, also, because that constitutes more than just a man and a woman. And marriage between a person and an animal. The definition needs to be changed to accommodate anyone else.

Additional: You asked why it's not considered discrimination, and it's technically because of the definition of marriage. Not being allowed to marry because of race was discrimination because it was based on race and not on the definition of marriage as set down. That is the difference between those two. As I stated, in order to get past this then the definition of marriage needs to be changed, just as the definition of what constitutes a family was changed in order to accommodate the changes in family groupings.

And since there are marriages of animals to animals, then the law can be changed to accommodate people marrying animals. Wise up. Animals are left dying people's estates all of the time, so there is precedent for them to enter into legally binding contracts.

Why are you asking questions if you believe yourself to already know the answers?
Discrimination is a slippery slope. Think of it in terms of a judicial scale. Society needs to have balance. If there are differing opinions, then the loser will feel discriminated against. We, as a society, must 'weigh' benefits and downsides of each argument to develop the laws in which we live by. Race, Gender, Orientation, and Beliefs all have 'weight'. This is why it is so important the majority rules. Government does not tell us what is right and wrong, we tell the government what needs to be fixed. Discrimination based on Race and Gender has proven to be socially distasteful by the majority. Whether you or I believe discrimination based on orientation or belief system is wrong is irrelevant. The majority must agree.
They should honestly be allowed to get married! They have the right to be miserable and bored as everyone else. Read my answer to this question: How can people learn to disregard prejudices based on race, appearance, or social status? You'll understand where I stand on that question.


Answer:
I'm just going to give you a point-blank direct answer to your question. There is nothing in the US constitution prohibiting all discrimination. Only discrimination that falls under one of the distinct clauses of the 14th amendment (due process or equal protection) is banned. The government is free to discriminate against groups of people as long as they do not violate one of these two clauses (or any anti-discrimination clauses in state constitutions).
male-female relationships foster procreation, they represntive to halves equalling a whole. homos are two left shoes, a 'family' out of balance. incapable of procreation. homosexuality is a pschological disorder created when a persons mind gets f***** up during their sexually foramative years (abuse, mixed gender roles in the home, etc) promoting this illness as a legitimate lifestyle choice is bad for society.
It is discrimination. In fact, it is gender-based discrimination, because the restrictions are based (according to the text of the law) solely on the gender of the potential spouse.

However, gender based discrimination is allowed under certain circumstances. The outstanding question is whether the Supreme Court will recognize that argument if it ever gets that far.
As far as I'm concerned it is discrimination.

What's next, two people of different races can't get married because if they have kids, the kids may be teased in school?

Blonde women can't get married because the general opinion of blondes is that they're not very intelligent and therefore should not make a decision that big?

A blind man and blind woman can't marry because something may happen that would require sight to resolve?

Same for a deaf couple?

Laws can be changed, and should. If two people are in love, no matter their genders, they should be allowed the same opportunities as any other two people.

Until the government decides to ban divorce, they should not be able to ban weddings. (that goes for straight, gay, polyamorous, black, white, blind, sighted, deaf, interracial, etc...'
unfortunately it is not considered discrimination in states where/when there are no laws allowing gay marriage. if it is in a state where gay marriage is legal, denial of marriage rights/benefits can be discrimination. it sucks, but it is the way the law is at the moment.

i agree with the above poster, everyone should have the same legal right to be miserable reguardless of sexual orientation.
Not allowing geys (or anyone else) to legally marry if they are totally consent to it IS a discrimination. Clear discrimination. There is NOTHING that can successfully argue that ban on gey marriage is not a discrimination. We are not in a Stone Age.
Our Creator does not call gay marriage a matter of discrimination - he calls it an abomination and he allows all booty bandits to pick out their very own wedding presents.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that you cannot do such sick behaviourial acts that brings forth disease and causes confusion to your mind, far be it from me to go against all the gay polititions out there that want the same you do and go against all moral peoples they allegedly represent, so they can conduct a lifestyle that I never would have voted for had I known they were fruity.

Not because I am prejudice - but; because those I vote for are supposed to represent me ... and frankly - I have better things to do with my time than to get naked with my fishing buddies ... I know you know what I mean.

It is not discrimination either if I tell the County Sheriff that I want to go rip off banks ... as many other's have done so and had not been caught - to catch me and throw me into jail for what others are doing WOULD BE AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION ... but;

For you to marry a woman if you are a man, or to marry a man if you are a woman - there is not discrimination whatsoever in that ... but; to take apples and oranges and try to make lemonaide - it does not come out the same.

Tell me what is so natural between same sex marriages? Do an experiment with some animals ... let's take rats - get two guy rats and put them in one cage ... then get a guy rat with a female rat and put them in to another cage .. . and then take two female rats (not exposed to the yucky man and woman type relationships that should be avoided at all costs, eh?) ... take the two female rats certified not to be pregnant and put them into a third cage.

Then wait and do a tally of how many off spring comes from each cage and at the end of their natural lives - do the math.

What you think if every one thought like you - so that they would not be discriminative and I moved into my bowling friend's house and his wife moved in with mine ... and this went on all over this sick planet like you confused people would like to have done - SO YOU AREN'T DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ... make us all fags and hags ...

How many more generations of mankind would we have left on this planet?

Let me help you with your math - it would be NONE - ZIP - ZERO ... there would be simply no more children born and you fags would win what you always wanted - to get rid of discrimination - permanently ...

For one - I do not appreciate the disease you all spread with your spreadings ... of AIDS (Anally Injected Death Syndrome), and I do not like the other diseases that are mutating with that HIV and AIDS to soon clean house on this planet of all life as we know it.

I hope my answer was serious enough for you - in fact, if you could not read between the lines, I am honored to expound in a short sentence that cannot be refuted ... here goes;

If you do not repent of your abomonations (a bomb on nations) and quit doing the very acts that our loving Creator told you not to do (but turned your minds over to the probate lusts) - then you will die and either not be resurrected - or you will be raised up to be burned. That of course is if you ever had opportunity to repent and chose not to, otherwise you will be instructed in the right way and if you don't want to repent - our Creator also made ROCKS and many arms to do what is right with them - in that day to come in the not so distant future.

Gay used to mean 'joyous' or 'happy' ... and now it has been totally defiled ... I feel that the word gay has been discriminated against and a conspiracy was waged against it ...

Why then, should not Gay peoples ... call them selves a more closely fitting word - since they are not joyous or 'happy' cause nobody wants them to give our children the wrong message by allowing demented people to have the same status as we hold by allowing a holy cerimony to be performed as if in agreement to the wicked acts ... so then,

Why don't we just call the 'unjoyous' and 'unhappy' Gays ... what they have really showed themselves to be - 'CONFUSED' ... let us call all the fags (which used to mean a pile of sticks - go gather a *** so we can get the fire going - as was an old expression) simply 'CONFUSED'.

Oh, I had to edit this one - as it is so special ... note in the paragraph above there is the ' *** ' kind of going on ... it is because I said fags - without the 's' ... watch again as I say *** ... see what I mean - but wait - I am being discriminated against ... watch: straight, moral, intestinal interpretude ... well, don't see where the words were deleted out so that others cannot use them against me - but; why do the 'CONFUSED' get to have words that automatically delete when they are used singularily? Like *** and not fags? Now, that is discrimination.

There would be no confusion as to whom we were speaking about and it is totally fitting and would not even take away the meaning of the original words - in fact ...

It may add to the word and give it more of an effectual meaning that is easier to comprehend than what in the world would make any man want to touch another man or do as they do with each other ... and call it normal and a discriminative measure because we people without the CONFUSION in our brains cannot fathom or even desire to find out what the buzz is all about.

Maybe smearing dog crap across our eyes and foreheads will be the new fad ... that should be more healthy- but; will it catch on as great a movement as the homo's brought forth - homo used as a combo and not a derrogatory statement - a combo of gays and lesbians ... I always have trouble seeing any difference between the two and therefore I prove I am not prejudice ...

Is there not laws against bashing gays ... or the 'CONFUSED'? What laws are out there to help us straight people from the discrimination that the 'CONFUSED' push on us?

What would you do if a cannibal came to your door with half of her grandmother - wanting to eat lunch on your porch? You don't want to discriminate now do you - it's just a little odd lifestyle change? Come on - you would probably scream like a little girly man and call the cops - who we trying to kid - everyone has some discrimination or prejudice in us ... and I must admit - I have never desired to see another man naked for any reason ... I would rather a cannibal use my porce for her lunch than to allow one of the 'CONFUSED' to talk to my children for 1 minute alone.

hey - why not have just kept the title of 'Queer', cause certainly it is just that kind of act - a queer act, is it not? How did all the queers come to be gay so they can become discriminated against?

Anyway - if someone speaks bad about queers or gays - they can end up in jail - but; I see queers and gays talking down on guys and gals getting married all the time and instead of the queer or gay going to jail - they get sympathy and empathy from other queers and/or gays and get to hug each other and cry. Nothing wrong with crying at all - the shortest scripture in the book of life is 'Yahshua wept' and if our messiah can weep - it must be a possitive character trait.

I hope you realize I did not bash you at all here - only had a serious discussion, the same as I have with fags, hags, queers and gays that live around me ... and the number is growing, let me tell you; however, you people should consider calling yourselves 'CONFUSED' so we know what your brain patterns are truly following and maybe then we can loosen up on discriminations?

Seriously - if a big cat was outside your house and someone ran through your door and screamed ... 'LION !!!' - would this not place an immediate picture as to what is being the subject of the screams and the slamming of doors ... would one have to stick his head out the door to come to understand what was being described as being outside? Have you ever heard of a lion being discriminated against? Don't think so - and therefore,

I humbly submit my vote as only one voice - that all gays, queers (as there is an old fellah that wears his sister's panties and such down the street that still calls himself a queer - so that is not a steriotype or a degrading thing to any with the mentality to support wearing their sister's panties and/or etc. ... no harm intended on my end), fags, hags and/or etc. should be called 'CONFUSED' ...

That way when my children run in the door and scream ... 'THERE IS A CONFUSED ONE OUT THERE ...' we can be sure to also bring in the dog and the goats until he or she decides to move along. That is not speaking against you or any of the 'CONFUSED', or discriminating - in fact, with people that I do not have to worry about wanting to pervert the normal body functions and marital status set forth in stone and handed to Moses on the Mt. - we do not hide the dog or lock up the goats for them - and they may consider the act of our caution as a discriminatory measure against them ... now the straight guys want me to drag in the dog and lock up the goats when they come too ...

You see how 'CONFUSED' this has all become. Seriously - this is not gay and this is not queer, fagged or hagged - it is just 'CONFUSED' and should truly be addressed as such to save us all from trying to figure out what makes us different on the individual basis.

Thanks for your time - I could go on but feel that this should have answered your question well enough.

Peace

.
Problem is religious groups donate sht loads of money to politicians to buy their vote and religious politicians like Bush put their beliefs before everyone else. They think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If you prevent religious groups and religious freaks from giving money to politicians then Gay marriage would be allowed and they would be given equal rights and benefits.
Because the Christian morality sees that it is wrong...which unfortunately is basically what a lot of laws are founded upon.
Don't worry...the world's changing and this will change soon.
The prohibition on same-sex marriage is not necessarily discrimination. It's a rational, utilitarian calculation of State interest.

There is a major distinction between rights and benefits. Privacy laws require that only immediate family members have access to a patient's room, for example. They have the right to be with their family member.

That right comes from the relationship between the two--they're family, created and connected by human procreation. As such, spouses, who are not related per se, are granted the same right because of their connection via procreation.

A right which is artificially granted is, in this context, a benefit. An incentive to facilitate what the State is truly interested in, replenishing the population ('survival of the State').

The State has a legitimate interest in providing incentives to keep procreating (which is, economically, a waste of time and counterproductive).

Multiple federal courts have determined, as the Washington state Supreme Court held, 'The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.'
marriage is between a man and a woman, you butt-nuts should rename your marriage a 'partnership' if society is so quick to accept billy and joey fkin in public, sooner or later somebody is gonna wanna marry the mule they been porking and will cry that society should accept animal/human marriage.