Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

So you never plan on having sex with anyone ever?

BTW, but "lol" in front of your posts does not validate your opinions nor invalidate those who disagree with you. It comes off more as a nervous defense mechanism.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

They can adopt kids, it's not like we don't have plenty out there who need families.

And if you really want to go along the lines that humans need to reproduce to exist, they can reproduce as well as straight. If there are only 4 people left, 2 male, 2 female, and they're all gay, they may feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, but they can still have sex and reproduce. The gay men could help the lesbian couple have kids. Just need to learn to cooperate with one another.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Everyone here woulld most likely think that I would be the last person to be against gay marriages, but surprisingly I am. The Bible is against gay marriage, and I can understand that. We should not force churches into doing something that is clearly against their policy as a devoted believer.

That is true, but there are guys who want to be gay. Those are the flaming homos that walk around with tight shirts on. It's not all genetic that people are gay. It can easily be from their childhood or hobbies. I bet 50% of all homosexuals could be straight if they wanted to.

Jesus really never talked about it because by the time he was around homosexuals realy weren't much of an issue then.

The bible has been edited, yes. I dont think it's been edited to an extent that people have added whatever they thought was bad. The bible is the word of god, not the word of other opinions.

Again, god didn't make them gay. Science really can't prove that homosexuality is genetic. It is a decision men and women make. Even if it is in your genes, you can stil be straight. Jesus wanted everyone treated evenly if they folow the word of god.

I'm not saying no against gay marriages in general, just throughtout the church.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

And you are basing this on what? Also, the "flaming homos" comment is pulling a LOT of steam out of your argument. I have a friend who is gay, and he didn't start out as a "flaming homo", but he eventually became one through hanging out with gay people after he caame out of the closet. I think this is a result of feeling repressed for 20 some odd years and feeling like something was wrong with him, rather than he just wants to be gay. Considering the amount of prejudice that homosexuals face in America, I don't think anyone would pick that if they had a choice.

Um, NO. Homosexuals were around a LONG time before Jesus. There are many accounts of gay bath houses in Rome and many other cultures before the birth of Christ. Christ hung out with 12 guys... what does that tell you? (Ok, that was a REALLY bad joke)

Thats your religious opinion, not necessarily true. Plus there are even holes in your argument. The Bible has been translated and retranslated numerous times. These were all done by man. If man if inherently fallable, whats to say there weren't mistakes. Maybe God loves Homos and we straight guys are going to burn in hell.

Science can't PROVE that gay men are born straight. Can you PROVE that being gay is just a choice or that God didn't make them that way? I even challenge to to find the part of the Bible that states that God didn't make people gay. Also, if Jesus (who is an extension of God) wanted to treat everyone evenly to follow the word of God, then why are some peope gay, and most aren't? It doesn't sound like they are being treated evenly to me.

I think each church should be allowed to make their own decision on that, except the Catholic church because their own stance in hippocritical considering the actively harbor perverted homosexual priests. At least most gay people aren't predators, unlike those that the Catholic Church protects.

But churches are independent bodies separate from the government, so they are free to chose whatever they like. The question is whether or not the government should get involved, which they have no right to.

Why the government has not gotten involved in whole pedophile priest ordeal, I have no idea. Last time I heard an adult sexually forcing themselves on a minor was against the law.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

If I were gay I wouldn't... I don't plan on doing any sins, because in a way, that's commiting a sin in itself. If I were planning to ave sex with a girl (if I were a girl) I might as well be planning on robbing a bank and killing sombody... Either way I'm hurting myself, and I would pay for it.

they could... but I have heard that it's extremely hard for a virgin woman to go through child birth. I don't want to go through the details. just hope thre of those people are doctors.

-EDIT-

One Winged Angel has a bit more 'personal' experience in this subject than you or me.... To be honest, I am shocked that he didn't take your side full on.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Live and let live.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Right on.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

[quote=The Strangler]And you are basing this on what? Also, the "flaming homos" comment is pulling a LOT of steam out of your argument. I have a friend who is gay, and he didn't start out as a "flaming homo", but he eventually became one through hanging out with gay people after he caame out of the closet. I think this is a result of feeling repressed for 20 some odd years and feeling like something was wrong with him, rather than he just wants to be gay. Considering the amount of prejudice that homosexuals face in America, I don't think anyone would pick that if they had a choice.[quote]

I'm aware of that, but I'm not pointing fingers at your friend. Personally I do know guys who wanted to gay... sorry, that was a little personal on my part.



I didnt say gays weren't around before or during christ. Now, where was Jesus located during christ... Jerusalem! Even though Jerusalem was apart of the Roman Empire, it wasn't Rome now was it?

Also that was a very disrespectful joke you made.


Even though the bible has been retranslated at times, the main point is still put out. I had a looong talk with Bond about this. Also another thing, considering that you don't know anything about the bible, you're not liable to say something like As a matter of fact god loves every human being. So, why don't you just shove a foot up your @$$. :P


I can't say that god didn't make them gay, but I can say that he doesn't want them to be gay.

Even though Jesus wanted people to be treated evenly, people don't. That's the kind of society we live in, not everyone listens to his word. Also, there are non-believers who are still treating them unfairly as well, that doesn't pertain to only christians.



You're speaking for only a very few number of priests. Those are the disgusting sinners that should not have such a role in any church.


I am not sure of that either, most likely because the Catholic church is not only in America. Even though most of the cases were, I guess there is a logical explanation of that.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Ok, so now it looks like we've got two questions being asked here.

1. Are you, personally and individually, biased against homosexuals?

2. Should the government deny marriage rights to homosexuals?

Justin seems to be answering only the first question (I haven't seen him say anything about government policy). So he doesn't like gay marriage, and if he were some person able to marry two people together like a priest or mayor of a town or something, he wouldn't do it for homosexuals. All right then. It's a stance I don't agree with, but that's nothing new. And besides that, it's not what I would call a stupid argument because it's a simple personal belief.

And to Justin's credit, he hasn't tried to equate homosexuality to pedophilia as some other fundamentalists do. That would have been a really stupid argument, and I'm not sorry for saying so in my previous post.

Now, as has been pointed out numerous times before, it's one thing to say you have a particular opinion and another to say that the government should act on that opinion. I've yet to see a convincing argument that gay marriage should not be allowed by the government. You can say that you personally don't accept it. But what reason can you give for the government not to do so?

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

So there weren't any gay people in Jerusalem? How do you know this? Where in the Bible does it say there weren't any gay people in Jerusalem? I guess they were all centralized in Rome then... that makes sense. :rolleyes:

How do you know I don't know anything about the Bible? I was raised Methodist and went to Bible school for 4 years and I am in fact a semi-historian of many religions. Just because I look at the Bible as a religious text, one of many, and not a word for word book of law, that doesn't mean I know nothing about it. As for God loving every human being, I believe that but Bible hard-liners who try and turn parables into stark contrasts of black and white use the Bible as a tool of hate, and not love. Christianisty was never meant to be this way, and later on I will point out how.

BTW, excellent way of avoiding MY point. If man relays the POINT, then how can we be sure that the point in not fallable?

So Jesus/God treats all people evenly? Then why are people created as homosexuals if by the very act of being that they are to either be tortured by feelings they can NEVER act on, or act on them and burn in hell? Meanwhile, we heterosexuals only have to wait for marriage. People have nothing to do with this argument.[/quote]

I agree that they should have no role. But what you view as "few" is relative. I think a few thousand is a LOT. Enough that the Church feels it needs to protect them as they are running low on those who are willing to become priests.

I guess I should state my true purpose in this argument. Religion has been hijacked by those who feel that the Bible is a book of law, and not a book of spirituality. Christianity was never meant to be this way, and the fact that it is is more a result of it being influenced by PAGAN religions that have been incorporated over the years. Before anyone flips out, but think of all the ritual involved in the Catholic church. Ritual is a direct influence from pagan religions.

From the time when Christianity first begain to spread thousands of years ago, Christianity was a Religion based on a book of Parables that were meant to be applied to the way of life of the day. Orthodox religions are the closest to this in today's society. The closest being the Russian Orthodox Church. They realize that the stories told in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. The word of God is intended basically to allow poeple to live to the best of thir ability given their circumstances, not to divide people into sinners and saints. Russian Orthodoxy do not even believe in Hell as we do. They believe that Hell is simply the absence of God. Hell is simply rotting in the ground and the dissipation of the soul. They belive Hell is the lack of being.

Modern Christian religions are more exclusive than inclusive and depend on fear to influence people more than love. I believe in God, and I believe in Him because in my heart I love Him. THAT is faith. Believing in God because a book told you to or because its better than the alternative that is Hell, is not. Its hedging your bets.

You claim that I know nothing about the Bible. I claim that what good is that knowledge, if all you know is the iterpretation of the Bible that has been fed to you since birth? How can you make a judgement when you walk through life with blinders on?

Modern religion is a victim from its own dogma that comes mainly not from the way Christianity begain, but from the outside influences it incorporated over the years to win converts. In fact, whole sections of the Bible have been removed. Ever hear of the Book of Enoch? It was originally in the Old Testament, only to be removed by the Catholic Church as heresy. How can the WORD OF GOD be heresy? Easy, it did not fit with the Catholic Church's own dogma. This is not how it was intended to be.

How do I know this? I have had many long conversations with my friend Edward. He is currently working on his discertation to gain his Doctorate of Philosophy and Religion from the Universtity of Pennsylvania.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

The question that arises from your points Strangler, at least for me, is that do you take Jesus literally?

By the way, has anyone noticed the more you learn about religion in general the less plausible it seems?

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

uhh....what he said

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

It's easier said than done, I'll admit to that... but I mentally put myself in thier shoes, and that's as much as I could do.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Well there are several views of Christ.

1) He is the literal son of God.

2) He is the embodiment of God on earth. So in essence, he IS God.

3) He was one of many men claiming to be prophets, just that more people took him seriously and he was never really a religious figure, but more of a misguided individual

Personally, I do not know whether Jesus was the savior. I have doubt, and without doubt I cannot proclaim faith in His existence. I have no doubts in the existence of God. To me he is fact. But I also realize that this is only fact to ME. I do not pretend to to be able thrust my beliefs as fact on others. To OWA his beliefs are truth, and I don't pretend to think that any logic can sway him of that because faith defies logic. In that case much of my argument is futile, but I also believe that sharing of information can only serve to enlighten when it comes to religion, as long as it remains civil which I think it has (OK, I was a little prickish, but thats just me :D )

In any case, the story of Jesus is very important to us all. His teachings are as relevant today as they were in his day. Just because I do not becessarily believe in Him, does not mean I do not believe in His teachings or that the archetype of the Christ figure is one that should be ignored. That also does not mean that I follow bllindly through life by those teachings. It is the standard by which the morals of a civilized society are based (but are also shared in many non-Christian beliefs). But these are familial morals, not to be enforced by any government. That is not the government's job. (HOLY CRAP, I'M BACK ON TOPIC!!!)

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

That's one statement there that I agree with. I won't say that I agree with all of it, but I agree with that one.

First off, a bit of an introduction to myself : I live in Canada. I lean a bit left on political issues.

That should bring up a few Canadian stereotypes, eh?

But in my opinion, laws stating that marriage is "a union of a man and a woman" are unfair, and in my personal opinion, against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that no one shall be discriminated on for any reason.

The way that I would change it would be to simply change the statement to "a union between two persons."
Then I would simply say that Churches, family values organisations, and other groups weighing in on this subject are free to choose whether or not to marry a proposed couple.

This may be rehashing what has been said in previous posts, but this is what I would do. It's what I believe the Government of Canada is currently considering; and when they implement this it will be one of the few things they've done that I would support.

As to the previous marijuana issue: I don't know whether or not I support decriminilization, much less legalisation. But imagine if we taxed it like beer and tobacco.

Lets everybody stop arguing about whether it's right or not to be gay.

Let's just agree that gay people are no different from you and I and should have equal rights.

Anyways: to releive tension I have decided to post this picture. I don't think anyone can be mad when this picture is around.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

This forum was intended for argument/debate.

Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

]]I'm sorry GameMaster, I forgot that you prefer to use the internet to avoid thought. If you're so against political and social discussion in these forums, THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN THE SPIN ZONE? Seems pretty stupid to me...

Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Strangler,

I did some research on the Book of Enoch and from what I read it sounds like it was originally its own book, a very odd book in that. At least Amazon.com is selling it as an entire book...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Its now considered an associated text of the Bible by the Catholic church, after being banned for so many years as heresy. It was lost for a long time but a few copies turned up in Ethiopia of all places. I would also check the validity of the copies sold on Amazon. There are copies of the Necronomicon in print, but those are the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft and not the real document.

If you want more info on any other apocryphal writings or pagan beliefs and organizations I highly recommend www.occultresearch.org. Their piece on the Necronomicon is both eye opening and quite frightening.

EDIT: Here is an online copy of the Book of Enoch
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Don't hate me for being efficient. :)

I did the following:

1. Showed a picture of a cool car
2. Showed a picture demonstrating Photoshop effects
3. Made a point about arguing over such a controversial issue.

I think most of the major points have been presented so all i'll say is i'm not against gay marriage and I feel that nobody should not be allowed to be married for being gay. Also on the subject of the book of enoch and it's removal from the bible by the catholic religion, I think you should all read a book called: The Da Vinci Code, it expains alot about the catholic religions removal of certain parts of the bible.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

...In a forum intended for arguing over just those topics, in a thread specifically intended to discuss the issue. Great job there, Plato. Discussion outside of video games isn't always pointless, and can often be enlightening. You should try it sometime.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Your cruel words hit me like spears of hatred.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Hatred? No. Just a little advice for character development.

And yes, Bond, I too love the syrupy sweet buzz of Mountain Dew. :D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

If I become a better character can we be allies again?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Well I wouldn't go THAT far... :D

If you don't like debating over social and political issues, then DON'T say anything in the forum that is intended for just such discussion. When you do, you sound like a contrarian who contributes nothing to the debate and just likes to read his own posts.

True story time.

I first encountered gay people when I started High school. There were a few openly gay people around. I never tried to talk to them, it was super scary. I had always been told that gay people were really bad. My parents are super prejudice.

So when I started working at McDonald's I had to work with 3 gay people. At first I was a little freaked out. But once I got to know them they were okay. Well two of them, One is a super jerk. Anyway, the point is, they're human beings just like us. And just like us straight people they too can feel love. So why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? Just like straight people they could take they're love to the ultimate point, marriage. I feel bad for some of the devout religious people that are posting in this thread. They don't really know what they are talking about. And as far as gay people being worthless because they can't reproduce, I don't see where that matters? People are always useful no matter if they can reproduce or not. So people make you burgers and some pump your gas, some save your butt from lawsuits, and some help you with your stock options. Gay people are everywhere. I don't think they should have to suffer all this abuse, I don't think they should have to suffer a war-monger like G.Dubya telling them they can't get married. What the heck does he know, that retard can barely read.

Now I'm not gay myself, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it's impossible to fall in love with another man. If something like that was to happen, it would happen. I'm not close-minded enough to close so many doors opened to me.

I hate Christianity. If any religion is a plague upon humanity, it's christianity and any branches of it. It makes me so angry to think of all the things that christianity has screwed up over the years. Instead of worrying over things like same sex marriages we should worry about all the people who die everyday because of religion and all the stupid things it does to people. How could someone believe in something so unrealistic as god? How could someone take another's life in the name of Allah, or in the name of God? So much hate in this world is caused by religion.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Post... was... going... so... well...
I wouldn't say that Christianity is a plague upon humanity, that is rather extreme. Christians have done many good things throughout the years. But just as every human organization they are corrupt. And a concept of a God is not an unrealistic one, considering we do not know what is realistic.

If there ever was a peaceful religion it would have to be Buddhism. I'm not such which religion is factually the most violent. I would guess it would be Muslims or Christians.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

And then you wrote this...

Way to close all those doors you say you like to keep open. Has Christianity only done good in this world? There was the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials and Witch Hunts, Crusades, etc. But what you don't read so much about in history books is all the good it has done, such as feeding millions of starving people, almost endless public service and charity and the fact that ALL of our morals stem from Christianity, whether you believe in God or not. It was Christian morals that led to the end of slavery. Most Pagan religions saw nothing wrong with it.

I may not be a Christian, but I have brains enough to recognize that Christianity has done far more good than evil in this world.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Sir, I salute you :bowdown:

Take a ****ing bow.


yes, I realize the irony in my "bowing down" to him after applauding him for decrying religion

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage? Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

As far as I've been paying attention, there has been no absolute evidence that there is a "gay gene" or that there is some hereditary condition that forces a person to be homosexual. And until that datum is ascertained, do you not think that we should reserve our judgement intent on changing our laws and norms? Most of you, obviously, do not think so. Since most of you for gay marriages seem to think that "being gay is pretty much hereditary (nice evidence!)" it is the case that homosexuality is intrinsic. Well, show me some data to support that. Last time I checked, not even the human genome project has been able to accomplish this.

It's a very, very simple inference. Seriously, just because a lot of people start saying that marrying animals (this has happened already), your family members, inanimate objects or what have you should be legal, does that mean we should change the laws to cater them? I mean, when does it stop?

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

Re: Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

But that aspect of the Constitution is based on traits that human beings have no control over, such as race and gender. I'm asking, is this the case with homosexuality. Well, does anyone know for sure? Courts deny addicts custody of their children sometimes. In your view, should this not be unconstitutional?

The difference is, the Jewish religion does not do anything that goes against the laws of the United States. Homosexuality is fine until it is put into question whether it should be validated in the form of marriage. In which case, it should rightly be questioned whether it is a genuinely human trait (hardcoded in our genetics).

And what's with this unconstitutional hoopla? Your views on the 14th Amendment is somewhat erroneous to your standards. Simply stated, the 14th Amendment does not force the government to stop categorizing people by stereotypes. Why do we give disabled people special previliges then?

Why, sadists love to torture people to attain sexual stimulation. Does that mean we let it go since well, sadists are just sadists and they're only people?

So, treating disabled people differently to give them previliges is unconstitutional? Uh-huh. Registering people under the sexual offenders list is unconstitutional? Right. The government should rightly treat people differently.

If some aspect of the society condones ethically unsound actions, I shudder to think that the citizens should just stand by and do nothing. According to your views, marriages between brothers and sisters should be fine also (since it affects only those that are getting married). Problem is, it marks a moral bankruptcy of a society to allow an ethically unsound legislation to pass. Now, I'm not saying homosexuality is an ethically unsound behavior. I'm merely saying that we do not know for sure whether it is or it isn't (given the lack of genetic evidence). When this is the case, should we pass a legislation to change our norm to suit homosexuality? When we don't even know for sure its very nature?

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

Re: Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage
 

Having a brother and sister become married is medically dangerous to their offspring though.
I think that's an entirely different issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call you on this one; as I think our constitution (and ultimately the Declaration of Independence) is a supreme paradigm of liberal and utilitarianistic moral principles. If you have heard of John Locke, and his influence on our constitution through his ethical principles, I would HARDLY make a claim so as to assert: "it is not the government's responsibility to legislate morals." Unless you have an abnormally narrow definition of morals, I seriously cannot see your point (such as your examples of petty and needless ordinances and statutes). Why, your assertion that the government must treat its citizens equally in and of itself is an ethical principle. It is an ethical principle in that it emphasizes the dignity and individuality of human beings (hallmark of classic liberalism).

Also, deciding as a society the right of homosexuals to marry when we don't know for sure that it is intrinsic does not seem to be a strictly personal moral issue. Whether you like it or not, people's marriages have effects on other people. Case in point: divorces that ruin children, creating problems for the society. This is a socially-relevant issue. Therefore, the society must have a say.

Well, the original topic pertained to gay marriages in general. And whether they should be allowed. Certainly, such a federal law should not be considered until there has been substantial amount of hard evidence.

Why do people delude themselves into thinking this way? Are people really disconnected from each other this way to have no effect on each other? Do you honestly think that a person's actions have no bearing on another?

It's like the argument with drug users. Right, they are only hurting themselves. Uh-huh. Suppose the addict OD's and requires medical attention but does not have the money to do so b/c he's spent it all on drugs. Who do you think will pay for his care? We, as a society, cannot look past him and merely say, "oh, it's all his fault so let him die."

This sort of assertion that the actions we take only affect ourselves is simply ludicrous. Unless you're living under a rock, everything that you do will have an affect on other people.

This is exactly why the government has limited rights to enact "moral legislations." I hate the idea of the government dictating our lives just as much as the next guy. But some people need guidance through laws.
Forsaking them in lieu of anarchistic privatism is an action of cowardice, not constitutionality.