Originally posted by design: In reality marriage cannot be "redifined" it can only be destroyed and rebuilt in a "new" image.
Is that "reality" or is that the subject of this debate - a lot of people wouldn't agree with you.
Quote: If marriage is not one man & one woman then it could be any thing you want. It could be three men and two women or brother and sister. After all wouldn't these just simply be consenting adults?
How exactly would that work? I don't believe that gays are asking for the reversal of legislation against these things.
Quote: Utah was allowed into the union based on them banning polygamy
Proving only that there is a precedent (at least in Utah) for changing the basic definition of marriage.
Quote: Fundementally it is wrong because the Bible says it is regardless of what any of us think.
Not every citizen reads the same bible as you do, or even practices the same religion, or any religion - and that it is their right. If at some point in the future, non-Christians became the majority, would you then be okay with having their religious definitions prevail as it pertains to interpreting the constitution and making law?
Originally posted by design: Is the real agenda here that they simply want to pay less taxes?
I believe that the real agenda is equal rights - and all the implications that come with equal rights, be they benefits or responsibilities.
