[Emland]

Marriage is not what is discriminating . . . It’s political ideology. We need to NOT use marriage as a political weapon for anything that is convenient that may also be listed as discriminating. What if we did everything like THAT? The Kentucky Derby discriminates against the cattle industry. Yet the cattle industry is probably being bought-off by big ranchers, feedlots, the beef industry, McDonald’s, Burger King, etc. Yet, no one wants to join together as a team and fight them for what they are doing when they discriminate against cows. Like for instance, how many cows do you see running in the event; which is well established as “The Kentucky Derby?” . . . NONE! Do you know why? . . . It’s because the Kentucky Derby is NOT for cows; it’s for horses!! Now, that doesn’t mean that you can’t run Elsie if she wants to run. Just don’t be calling Elsie’s race a horse race . . . Call it a Political Horse Race, A Bovine Run, or something else . . . Set aside a special day for cows to race, etc.; but you can destroy Horse-Racing by calling a cow-race a horse-race. It doesn’t mean that the KDP (Kentucky Derby People) hate you. Furthermore, there is no use in practicing some kind Webster’s Dictionary ignominy, just because you have the money, power, and political resources to do it. BTW, just in case you might want to equate this to Bull-Sh** then you are probably right . . . Thus, is the attack on the institution of marriage . . . All a bunch of BS . . . I don't mind telling you.

Let's use this Kentucky Derby analogy and look at it a different way.

Let's say the straight couples are the ones currently in the traditional Kentucky Derby racing thoroughbreds.

Now let's suppose that gay couples also want to run a race, and they also want to call it the Kentucky Derby but use bovines. It will run the same length and have the same regulations except that the participants are different. It is obvious to everyone that this race is not the same as the other race, but it allows the participants to race and reap the benefits like the traditionalists.

The original race is not impeded by this second race. The two enhance each other by allowing each type of participant to race and has the side effect of spreading good sportsmanship to everyone.

The only problem with the analogy is that the Kentucky Derby is most likely a corporately owned entity and there would be copyright infringement issues. However, since married couples are not a collective and do not own the rights to the word marriage - that does work.

[Sam DePecan]

Marriage is neither an ownee nor an owner. Marriage, by definition; can ONLY take place when a man marries a woman. Sex is NOT marriage. This might be where all the confusion is erupting from. It might be that the various definitions of "sex" and "sexual acts" are over-shadowing the institution of marriage; thus, opening up a whole, wide-array of the meaning of marriage. It is true that "honeymoon" may lead to this kind of thinking. I am happy for that, myself. What about the Wedding Cake? . . . Could you see what kind of fiasco could be created if the "sex" part of marriage was not taken so seriously but instead the Wedding Cake region would be so stressed? I mean that could lead to questions like, "Why can't we have German Chocolate Cake?" . . . Or, what makes the Hetero-Bakerismic Couples think that they can control the icing on the cake and the Homo-Bakerismic Couples have to eat the Wedding Cake withOUT any icing? It's not fair! What exactly is a Wedding Cake, anyway? They are not the ONLY ones who can have Hetero-Cup-Cakes . . . We should be served "Gay-Fond-do!" . . . In other words, just remove the "sex part" from the marriage and it's not worth mentioning redefining the meaning of the word; MARRIAGE. As far as complaing about something that married couples should keep in mind . . . Both the male and the female must have a Social Security Number, or they can not reap the same benefits on the Standard Form 1040 Income Tax Return. The IRS is not concerned about your certificate of marriage. The IRS is more concerened about the number they are calling you!!! . . . AND the two numbers that the Social Security Department has assigned to the two citizens filing the joint tax return. That is the new government that took over when we were caught "blinking". THAT is much more significant than the bouquet of flowers for the "best whatever . . . man???" ...

[Synnen]

If you're willing to pay back all the tax breaks you got when you were married in the name of fairness and keeping the word "marriage" to its original definition, well, then I'll accept your argument, Sam.

Otherwise--you're just grossed out by the idea that two people can love each other, regardless of gender, in the way that is usually only thought of as heterosexual.

Words get redefined all the time. Pull out an OED sometime and just look at the original definitions of words. One of my favorites is the word "nunnery". You think of that as a convent, right? I mean, how could anyone mistake it as something else! And a convent is a HOLY place!

Well, when Hamlet tells Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery", he's telling her to go to a whorehouse.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Why do word definitions HAVE to stay the same? I mean, look at the word "cool". Even 50 years ago, "cool" meant "not quite cold, not quite warm". Now it means all sorts of things, from "okay" to "that's really neat" to "calm and collected".

How DARE those people in the last 50 years change the meaning of the word! I mean, that just puts forest streams and light breezes into SHAME! It ruins the sanctity of a refrigerator --and omg, what about coolers? Are they just "okay" now?

The definition argument holds no water for me. Words mean what society thinks they mean, no more, no less.

[JudyKayTee]

[F]Marriage is neither an ownee nor an owner. Marriage, by definition; can ONLY take place when a man marries a woman. Sex is NOT marriage. This might be where all the confusion is erupting from. It might be that the various definitions of "sex" and "sexual acts" are over-shadowing the institution of marriage; thus, opening up a whole, wide-array of the meaning of marriage. It is true that "honeymoon" may lead to this kind of thinking. I am happy for that, myself. What about the Wedding Cake? . . . Could you see what kind of fiasco could be created if the "sex" part of marriage was not taken so seriously but instead the Wedding Cake region would be so stressed? I mean that could lead to questions like, "Why can't we have German Chocolate Cake?" . . . Or, what makes the Hetero-Bakerismic Couples think that they can control the icing on the cake and the Homo-Bakerismic Couples have to eat the Wedding Cake withOUT any icing? It's not fair! What exactly is a Wedding Cake, anyway? They are not the ONLY ones who can have Hetero-Cup-Cakes . . . We should be served "Gay-Fond-do!" . . . In other words, just remove the "sex part" from the marriage and it's not worth mentioning redefining the meaning of the word; MARRIAGE. As far as complaing about something that married couples should keep in mind . . . Both the male and the female must have a Social Security Number, or they can not reap the same benefits on the Standard Form 1040 Income Tax Return. The IRS is not concerned about your certificate of marriage. The IRS is more concerened about the number they are calling you!!! . . . AND the two numbers that the Social Security Department has assigned to the two citizens filing the joint tax return. That is the new government that took over when we were caught "blinking". THAT is much more significant than the bouquet of flowers for the "best whatever . . . man???" ...

Actually the legal definition of marriage is: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally. Forms of marriage include: monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, same-sex, pragmatic (arranged), romantic and forced.

What are you talking about as far as IRS is concerned? Are you saying that I can legally file a joint return with another person, not my legal husband, as long as we list both SS numbers? How do you propose handling the "check the box if you are married filing jointly" question and the fact that lying is a Federal crime ?

Here's part of the IRS Reg: "You may only file a joint return if you are married at the end of the tax year (December 31) and both of you agree to file and sign a joint return.1 The box you check on your return is “Married filing jointly.” Same-sex couples and domestic partners cannot file joint returns. You qualify as married even if you are separated as long as there is no final decree terminating your marital status."

You are giving very strange, totally incorrect and also very illegal advice - I am beginning to get the feeling that those people you wish you could bomb or kill may be following the same Laws you prefer to ignore.

I have no idea what your sex equals marriage equals chocolate cake rant is about - there are marriages without sex for a variety of reasons. Does that make them invalid or non-existent marriages? Was that your point?

[Lawngnomez]

A lot of people say that nothing can stand between two lovers. People are (supposedly ) created equal, so what right do we have to judge others? I thought when we ended slavery, it was supposed to the end of judging others because they are different. I am straight, but why should straight people be against same-sex marriage? It hardly affects straight people, I think. So why not live and let live?