You are missing something. When you teach kids about marriage, you are not teaching them that a black man cant be with a white woman. You are teaching them that the PURPOSE for marriage is to build a family. Not to say that you can't build one between a gay couple, but what is the purpose of Gay Marriage. To have equal protection and rights? Then if I decide to get married to a dog or cat because I "think" its right...then what is the purpose of that marriage? To have legal rights and equal protection? That alone should be enough to say that gay marriage has no purpose other than $$$ and other benfits. Now, do you want to explain and teach children what being homosexual is? And what is the purpose of homosexuality? I have many friends that are homosexual and they are great people, but they're lifestyle should not be taught. Again, I go back to me being with a dog or a cat. I think its right and I want to show the world that what I do blows my mind away, but does it have any reason to be taught to a child?

I will teach my children that gay people are NOT animals and that the argument that somehow homosexuality and beastiality can be even remotely associated is wrong. I will teach my children to pity people too small minded to know the difference. I will teach my children to treat others like they would want to be treated, even when they don't agree with someone. I will teach my children to respect and even defend the happiness of others. I will teach my children that family has more than one definition. I will teach my children about homosexuality because ignorance isn't pretty. I will not, however, teach my children their sexual preference, any more than I could teach them their hair color or their eye color or how tall to grow.

What's really the purpose of "marriage" in the first place?
My parents got divorced when I was 2 years old.
I was never married, but have two children and we both take care of them without any lawyer or written contract involved.
Now that contraception and (supposed) equal rights exist, parents should feel equally and above all responsible for bringing protection to their children. Matrimony NEVER granted love, stability or even protection. Why do we beg for the society to control, like if it was a business, what should be strictly private, unless we admit we can't trust our partner? Isn’t strange that it's often people who support less control in business and guns who advocate strict laws or restrictions for marriage?

Historically, marriage has more to do with property and religion than ... actually love.

(To compare the union between two human beings and "marriage" with animals is particularly irrelevant to say the least. I agree with Krys)

Petey:
1. The "purpose" of gay marriage is so 2 people of the same gender can love and protect each other just like everyone else.
2. There are many "straight" couples that decide not to have a family: what about them?
3. If everyone was as uninformed and narrow minded as you I would marry my pet.

You are just as narrow minded Krys and why I brought the point up of a relationship with a cat or dog. I didnt mean it literally, but lets argue that I think getting married to an animal is right in my eyes. Just because YOU think its wrong then everyone is should think its wrong? They are MY feelings, MY VIEWS. How is gay marriage any different? Because they are your feelings and your views I have to accept them? You are missing the purpose of marriage. How do you define Marriage? Should we define marriage at all? Looking back at history, marriage has been stated and was intended to start, build and protect the family. Can we at least agree on that?

If you fall outside of those lines in any sense, why are you looking to get married is my question? Whats the purpose?? Homosexuals cannot phsyically start a family. Just like a man that wants to marry an animal cant. When you open up the door to interperting what you think marriage should be, then you open it up to everyone that feels thier views are the right views.

Why shouldn't the guy that wants to marry an animal be given rights, privilages and be recognized by all people? Just because he was born loveing animals? So who are you to judge and say the animal guy is wrong?

The bottom line is we are all forgetting the purpose of marriage. Not even hetero couples respect or really have a clue as to what marriage is all about. When you get down to it, its about the family. Its not about expressing your emotions or showing the world you are proud of your companinon, wheter it be an animal or not. Its not about the financial benefits. Its about family.

Can homosexuals have families. Of course they can. But they will never go through child birth physically. Just as the animal guy...can he have a family, sure. Will he ever go through that..wow, if he does we're all in trouble.

And about teaching children...Children should be taught to respect everyone. But they should not have to be taught to understand WHY or shown WHY some people live a different lifestyle. As PARENTS, we should be teaching them that there are things in this world that are different. Sadly, to often we just push it off for someone else to teach them.

And Krys, I am not a narrow minded person. These are my views and opinons. Just like you have yours. My views are based on history, but that does not make them absolute. I just happen to think that we are missing the whole purpose and definition of what marriage was stated for.

Phil, you make some great points. Matrimony does not grant love. Sadly, most married people dont have a clue what love is. If not the divorce rate would not be where its at. The worst part is that ultimately the children pay the price for the poor decisions made by their parents. Again, most hetero couples dont have a clue what love is.

The whole reason I brought the animal marriage up is to stir things up. I think it all comes down to defining what marriage is and what's the purpose.

Liz, why is my view narrow minded when you are the one that says being with an animal is wrong? Go figure. You point to what's wrong with my views and how my views are narrow minded? If you're going to make a point, then bring a well thought out point.

Im looking at all the perspectives. Believe me that I understand that homosexual couples want to have the same rights as married couples do. You dont think that I understand a gay companion not being able to see his partner in the hospital when they are not considered "family members?" You dont think that I know that a good homosexual couple would some day like to give the best of what they've earned to pass that on to a child they can someday call their own?

You are missing the point. If we open to define marriage to the courts, why should we stop at defining marriage as a union between two people of any gender. Why should we stop there? Now that you are satisified with the definition of marriage, now the animal guy isn't satisfied. He is going to think the same things homosexuals did before. I can already hear the animal guy saying:"I'm being discriminated because I choose to love this animal. I was born this way. I sincerely do not see myself with anyone else but my cat. I want to raise a family with my views"

I know my example is very FAR FAR fetched, but where do we draw the line? Who decides how we draw that line and why are their views ultimate? Just because someones view is different, should we give one group the okay and not the other? I agree that homosexuals should be given rights, but marriage in my book and in the history books for over two thousand years has been between a man a woman. Why should be change it now? Because homosexuals have been discriminated? What about the animal guy? Is he being discriminated?

Petey,

Until that cat becomes of legal consent and can learn to sign a legally binding contract, I wouldn't worry too much about people marrying pets.

Petey,
A point of information:
You declared that, "Can homosexuals have families. Of course they can. But they will never go through child birth physically."
My family includes my wife, our 3 sons, two of whom my wife gave birth to and one that I delivered, two daughters-in-law, and a kitty.
My family is very real, and very strong. Our children were born into our loving arms. My marriage is one of the 18,000 that remain valid despite Prop 8. Perhaps you should visit us on Saturday when we march in Fresno to express our concern about the CA court's recent decision. There you would be able to meet hundreds of LGBT families, many with naturally born children. I hope you would then find it less palatable to discriminate against those who want nothing more than to be treated fairly, as you are, in the eyes of the law.

Petey, if you understood history as you think you do, you would know that for thousands of years marriages were based more on political and financial alliances than our 'modern' interpretation. What you present as your 'view' has only been around for about the last hundred years - hardly a 'tradition.' You should know that when your argument moves to the 'marrying animals' defense, you have lost that argument.

Petey,

It turned out that my wife and I couldn't have kids, so according to you, our marriage and love for one another (20+ years and getting better!) shouldn't be allowed because we can't have your definition of a family? And you feel there is no 'purpose' to our wanting to be married? Oh, brother...

And comparing homosexuals to animals?? Dude...I don't think I've heard a more invalid argument ever in any forum or setting. It's not extreme or far-fetched to make a point as you claim...it's just plain old totally invalid as we're talking human rights here. Period. To extend the argument as you've claimed is to deny classifying gays as human. And that ain't right, pal.

And you're only kidding yourself about being open-minded. All you're doing is manufacturing reasons (faux ones at that) to justify you're own bigotry.

Sorry...Chan and the rest on this board are absolutely right that there simply is no valid, logical or societally-compelling reason for the word 'marriage' (which IS as much a legal definition as a religious/spiritual one) to NOT be applicable, as a matter of those inalienable human rights (not animal rights!) America is supposed to stand for.

Kathy - Didnt think about two women together having a family, but you do make a valid point. And to be clear, I am not for discriminating against anyone. Just trying to see where do we draw the line? There have to be lines drawn somewhere right? Or do we just ignore them all? Like to see what you think marriage should be? Should we exclude polygamists and anyone with another view of marriage?

Frank, check your history again. Marriage is cerimonial that goes back thousands of years. As for the animal example, only an example to point out that the possibility of someones view being completely different than what your view is. Of course animals and humans are different, but I was presenting the idea as being completely different and off the wall to the traditional definition of marriage. To me, I have homosexual friends so its not completely different to me to see to men or two women together. But to some people in this country, they have never seen that before. Don't be offended by my example. My intentions to slam anyones views, opinions or lifestyle. This is an arena to excahnge ideas. I am not right nor do I say my view is ultimate. AGAIN, where do we draw the line is my point.

George - go back and read all the posts before you try and paint me as a bigot or try and slam someone for asking questions and making statements. Don't take things personally. I am sharing my views in a manner that I hope does not offend anyone. Im not asking you to accept my views. Again, the question is where do we draw the line or how do we define marriage. Its called having a discussion and hearing peoples arguments. You were the one that took my statments personally and pinned yourself down for not being able to have kids. I never compared homosexuals to animals. Go back and read carefully.

I'll make it clearer and bring it down to an elementary level where you can understand: Comparing traditiaonl marriage to any other view of marriage. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

***Correction..My intentions are NOT to slam anyones views, opinions or lifestyle. This is an arena to excahnge ideas. I am not right nor do I say my view is ultimate. AGAIN, where do we draw the line is my point.

What a sick world we live in to actually contemplate allowing this. These people are sick and need help. What an f-ing waste of taxpayer's money.

Petey, Lion Doll... no debate, no arguement. You're just IDIOTS.