Gay marriage

THE GOVERONMEN SHOULD NOT ACKNOWLAGE ANY MARRIAGEWe're talking about two completely different things here, just becauyse the people want to have the Federal Goveronment acknowladge marriages doesn't mean anything since this is a constitutional point. This means that since the constituton in effect gives the people the power to define marriage is grounds to base the definition off of the will of the people. But acknowladging marriages because the people want it does not apply to this case since nowhere in the constitution does it say "if the people want to do something contrary to this constitution,the goveronment should go along with it."It DOES, however, say that if a power isn't given to the Federal Goveronment it belongs to the states or to the people. THE GOVERONMENT ISN'T GIVEN THE POWER TO REDEFINE MARRIAGEFirst of all, like I said before, legal marriages are not spelled out in the constitution neither were they added in via an ammendment. All this is is the goveronment overstepping its given powers then trying to redefine a religious institution as if it was a legal istitution invented by itself. Second of all, just because the goveronment decides i doesn't make it so- if the goveronment passed a law saying that a pile of manuer was an ice cream sunday it is still a plile of manuer, and the goveronment still doesn't have the power to define what it ice cream and what is not. NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE GAYNo, the argument is that the rest of society should NOT have to conform their ways to appease a tiny minorities fringe lifestyle. This is completely nonsensical and tyranous, I don't get to decide that because I hate the color red wearing red should be illegal. I also don't get to decide that it is discrimination against gross people to not serve manuer at an ice cream parlor, ad hence demand that all ice cream parlors stock manuer on account of my fringge lifestyle. THE MAJORITY DEFINE MARRIAGE IN A TRADITIONAL WAYI said that the majority of Americans define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus the innate definition in America is between a man and a woman, no goveronment involved. For exampe, 70% of americans are Christian, thus making this a Christian nation. This obcourse doesn't mean that we should all have to go by their religion, but if I came along and decreed that everyone should wear Tzitzit because I'm a Jew, this would be tyranny. Likewise, a tiny minority of people live a fringe lifestyle and want to goveronment to redefine a religious institution according to Secular values. THAT is tyranous, you cannot redefine an entire institution because you like to live life in a stange and immoral way. ACKNOWLADGING GAY MARRIAGES SERVES NO BENEFITThere are no legal or societal benefits to having a goveronment peice of paper that frankly doesn't mean jack diddly squat handed to you by some judge. A much better idea is to decentralise marriage, and impliment a lassiez faire marriage system. Basically if 2 men want to bee "married," they just can get a peice of paper and make up the terms of their "marriage," sighn it, and have some random dude declare them married. Then if a matter arises the goveronment will uphold all of their marrital duties since it is a legal binding contract. Contrary to what the liberals may wish though, these contracts will NOT be handed out, printed, or recorded by goveronment, and it will be acknowlkadged as a contract and not marriage since marriage is a religious institution, and the govt should say out of religion. Rather, the govt will uphold these oblegations like any other contract in a court of law. WHY PAY MORE TAXES?There are no benefits to paying more money, and can you give me a few of these supposed "benefits," right now you are just making assertations. I personally cannot see anything less beneficial than spending money. MORAL DECAYI said that we shouldn't care what they do alone because that's just stupid, but the prromotion of and acknowladgement of homosexuality by goveronment creates moral decay since our kids will be taught that it's OK somehow, which DOES create harm. EQUALITYIt isn't discrimination any more than firing someone for sleeping on the job is discriminating against lazy people. This is because a lazy person could get up and do some work just as much as a gay person could not be gay, not marry someone of the same gender, or marry someone of the opposite gender. Just an example, but the same principle applies. Besides, if no marriages are acknowledged by goveronment then everyone is equal, AND we pay less taxes. So I don't really see my opponents point here. THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICANo, if we impliment a law getting goveronment out of marriage alltogether they cannot claim that it is discrimination since no one is getting married by Uncle Sam. Thus they cannot make such absurd claims as ":discrimination," or "the 14t ammendment," sice everyone is exactly equal under the law! I think this is a genius way of fixing our issue as well as creating a compromise between the liberals and conservatives on this issue.