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

"You are debating the morality of homosexual marriage." No I am debating you. It is a bit hard to debate a topic when you make no coherent argument for one and address no points that I raise. :) Arguing that reproduction is a requisite for marriage is a moral argument. Saying same sex marriage is bad for society is a moral argument. "It is impossible to write a constitutional amendment that wont discriminate if you include same sex marriage in the definition." Firstly.... "The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage." http://www.lao.ca.gov... The current definition of marriage already 'discriminates'. Why should a new definition be an issue in that regards? You are discussing same sex marriage. Incest etc. is another set of laws. If you want to argue that same sex marriage will lead to a push for incestual marriage then start that debate. Homosexuality is not analogous to incest, or schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder. As it stands Californian state law in regards to marriage removes gendered pro nouns from its definitions. It is not a requirement of same sex marriage to have "same sex" in the definition of marriage itself. The recent court ruling was the removal of a Bill that asserted gendered pro nouns in its marriage definition. "You can,'t say a marriage between to people and then have a bunch of exceptions." Of course you can. The current norm definition of marriage EXCEPTS same sex couples and familial marriage. Why should the inclusion of same sex marriage stop current laws from already in place that deny familial marriage? I really shouldn’t ask because you have made no case for it so far, and this is the final round. You have singularly failed to present any coherent argument for any position. "There is no legal definition anymore in the two states you mentioned,. The supreme courts just arbitrarily decided to add same sex marriages to the definition of marriage and made no attempt to rewrite it to include same sex marriages because it is impossible." Arbitrarily? One day the judge just woke up and decided to flip a coin to see what crazy law he could pass? Just because you do not agree with the law does not make its process any less deliberated. Considering the nature of the law and the history of same sex laws in the US in general, we can be fairly sure it was anything but arbitrary. You should look at the legal precedents (121) that were considered in the making of the ruling. Chief Justice Ronald George, "an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." Before you cry AHAH! Incest is not an orientation. You are arguing sexual orientation, not sex remember. "And you know they will ask just to take advantage of the financial benefits." Why is this wrong? If same sex couples have certain privileges/benefits received from marriage, then same sex couples should equally be allowed. If you are arguing constitutional amendments, then you are arguing about civil marriages. i.e. Those that occur under the jurisprudence of governmental law. Not religion. If any state provides any legal or financial benefit, it is there under the title of 'married'. It makes no claim or judgement on intent.