This is why you can't have a constitutional amendment that reads: "A marrige is between two people"

I should clear up that 'gay' is colloquially reserved for male homosexuals, though applicable to both sexes. I will use the term 'gay' in the latter sense. "As it stands now there is no Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. Marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a women." (That's either polygamy or a spelling error.) ;) 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons: wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Clearly if California, Massachusetts(or any country for that matter) can legally marry same sex couples then the legal definition current and future of any given state may also include definition 2. "But we as a society haven't needed one until recently because all common sense has gone out the window with regard to this subject." We can, safely ignore your claims of 'common sense' and any future appeals to similar rhetoric of 'well my gay friends agree', because we are not debating that here. What you have succinctly failed to show is why same sex marriage is in any way negative. You claim it is discriminatory without providing an argument for such. You infer it is 'bad common sense' without showing in any coherent manner why. Perhaps society needs it now because it recognises the rights of individuals a lot more than in ignorant filled history. Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual though not a requirement in any way) are sanctioned with governmental, and/or religious recognition. It is created via contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal form of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with any marriage laws of government. "Homosexuals cannot procreate. Anyone who claims to be homosexual and has children through natural means is not homosexual they are bi-sexual furthermore anyone who has had sexual relations with both sexes even though no children were produced are also bi-sexual and cannot be counted as true homosexuals." Is this you sole pre-requisite for marriage? That any given couple must by necessity procreate for whatever reason? That a failure to bear children renders one useless as a legally married partner? Certainly lack of sex can be a reason for annulment, but it is not sex we are talking about either. So can any given gay couple have children? Well yes they can. Why this is a social necessity and/or a requisite definition for marriage you will have to explain in the next round, but for now let us go through a few though certainly not exhaustive options. Male gay couple: Adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, surrogacy and donated egg. Female gay couple: Adoption, artificial insemination, artificial insemination and surrogacy, donated egg with sperm with/without surrogacy. So yes, gay couples can have children. Whether or not it is a 'traditional' method is irrelevant. If you are arguing that a child is a requisite for a marriage then you must explain why a 'natural' child has more inherent value/worth than one conceived otherwise. Even if we assume you crass definition of bi sexuality is correct... 'Bi-sexual' partner and gay partner wish to get married. The 'bi-sexual' has children from a previous relationship. So they fulfil the 'look at us we have children' requisite of yours, they are a same sex couple thus fulfilling any same sex marriage definition. Why then should they be refused marriage? However since your definition is a crass one... b: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes 2: of, relating to, or involving both sexes http://www.merriam-webster.com... Tendency is no absolute; one may be bisexual and have same sex (or not) partners in entirety of their sexual history. Are you going to argue that bisexual is only a physical act? You may be married have children and have attraction to both male and female partners. I really don’t know or care. The point is that one may be bisexual in thought and preference and uni sex partner in daily life. By definition 2 the same issue applies. You have also failed to argue why going by your 'worst case' scenario two same sex bisexuals who wish to marry should be denied marriage purely on any previous sexual episodes. Ones sexual history in no way derails any definition of same sex marriage. Unless you also argue opposite sex marriages are invalid if at least one partner has had a same sex past relationship. One can make all the arguments they want that homosexual activity takes place in the animal kingdom and therefore it is natural for humans to. But in the animal kingdom the animals are often attacked and killed or run off or rejected. Natural selection almost always prevents these animals from passing on their genes thus limiting their numbers. But we are not animals, we are human beings." Not wishing to derail this into any evolutionary debate but, there are at last count at least 470 species of animals that engage in some manner of same sex act, which in no way has any implications for a process of natural selection to remove said traits. We (humans) are however animals; descended from and currently. We are not some discrete biological entity on this planet removed from our natural history. Same sex acts provide sensory gratification, and social bonuses, these are both strong motivators. If you wish to argue the whole biology/choice issue then fine, but it is hardly relevant here. "We are suppose to understand why homosexual behavior is not conducive to society. Homosexuals cannot procreate not now not by accident not ever" We are supposed to? That is doubtful and somewhat homophobic to be frank. We should be more concerned why homophobia exists and exhibits itself in anti social behaviour. Anti gay sentiment/rights is the behaviour that is not socially conducive. Again you will have to argue clearly why child birth is some immovable standard to set for marriage. What about heterosexual couples that choose not to have children? Or those where one/both members are sterile? What about those that are prone to miscarriage? Will you demand divorce for those couples that cannot 'supply' children? "Now on to the funny part" Nope. No laughter there. All I see is a base slippery slope argument and useless as such.