Perhaps I'm confused.  The vote tallies in Colorado are exactly the opposite of your reporting.  South Dakota voted down the abortion ban.  At this point, it seems likely that California did as well.  Washington approved doctor-assisted suicide.  The only trends that I think can really be drawn from this is that there is still high support for bans on gay marriage.  I really doubt that many people are surprised by that particular factoid. 

Did you know Obama is a heavy smoker?

He decided to quit to run for Pres.

Maybe he will ban smoking bans.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html

You have the Colorado one reversed.  They voted 73-27 to NOT define human life at the moment of conception.  And with that ALL of the ballot measures attempting to limit Abortion in any way shape or form failed, some by wider margins than others (the one in Cali is still processing at the moment but as of 11:50 EST it looks like it will fail).

Maybe you can explain this to me, and I want real reasons not talking points, why is it so wrong to allow two people who love each other to be allowed to express that love and commit to each other for life?  Why is it so wrong to allow two people who love each other to be allowed in the hospital room together when one of them is ill (possibly dieing)?  It's just something that I've never understood.

Yeah, KFC, you got it completely backwards on the Colorado vote.  73% voted down an amendment to declare that life begins at conception.

ok, yes, I guess I did read it backwards so I made a correction.  I think I'm too tired to read today.  Sorry bout that! 

But I am surprised at that Colorado vote now looking at it.  I'm also kind of surprised but not really at the same time about MA voting down the idea of eliminating state income tax.  Nearby NH doesn't have state income tax and many find that to be attractive. 

Road Trip!!!

Without having the time to just lay it all out right now (maybe later) I'll just say it's not a healthy relationship to have man with man and woman with woman.  It's not good all the way around whether it be whether we're talking about society, family, emotionally or physically not to mention it does go against the plan God put forth for all of mankind.  So morally speaking we've got a problem with this as well. 

As far as anyone being in the hospital room with another person I have no problem with that no matter the sex or the age and don't understand it from that perspective either.  I say let them do what they want but just don't let them tell us that  we have to accept homosexuality as perfectly normal and fine.  I don't want it to be legalized that marriage between a man and a man is  or a woman and a woman perfectly comparable to that of a man and a woman. 

Not everyone sees things the same way. You may not understand it but then people don't always have to or never will. In order to understand it you would have to be willing to accept it and since by your comments you don't seem to accept that the majority see marriage as a union between a man and a woman, you will never understand it.

I agree marriage should be between a man and a woman, but if the majority see it otherwise, so be it. I believe in peoples right to choose the majority vote; I also believe that everyone will eventually have to live with the consequences of their choices (good or bad).

You make it sound like this is equal rights.  It's not equal rights.  A lesbian has the exact same right as I do to marry a man.  They want SPECIAL rights.

The problem with special rights with marriage in a society that is based on man/woman marriage is that you can't stop with homosexuals.  Why then can't a man marry his sister if they both have surgery to insure they can't pro-create?  How about giving someone the special right to have more than one spouse?

The traditional family is the cornerstone of our country...our taxes, our values, etc.  Just flipping that over won't bode well for anyone, including homosexuals.

I don't really think it's SPECIAL when the same right would be extended to you.  You'd then be free to marry a woman, too, if you felt so inclined, Tova.  I wouldn't use the word special - I'd use the word broadened - since it would apply to all.

And don't take this as a sign I think we SHOULD extend those rights - I'm just saying I think it's disingenuous to say 'special', as it applies that said right would only be extended to a subset of the population.

For the record I am a fairly open minded guy.  I like to attempt to understand where everyone is coming from no matter what the issue is.  My questions in this thread are related to my attempting to gain that understanding and nothing more than that so please don't get offended by anything I might ask on here I am merely trying to gain an understanding from people and nothing more.

From this it sounds like your major hang up on the issue is simply the word marriage, it sounds like you would be ok with the idea of civil unions that give the same rights to gay couples as marriage does to a man and woman.  Am I correct in that?  In that case why not just call all "marriages" civil unions from a legal standpoint and let people call it whatever they want when they are talking to other people?  I guess you feel that by calling the gay couple married then you must accept homosexuality, would that be an accurate statement?

Why you have time I would like some clarification on this.  Exactly how is the relationship "unhealthy"?

Again I have to ask for some clarification.  Speficically please explain how homosexuals are bad for society, emotionally and physically, I think I know how you feel they are bad for the family.

Since I am asking about the legal definition of marriage these two points aren't relevant.  God has no place in government because it illicits the idea of religion which we both of a freedom of and a freedom from.  Also morals are subjective, what you deem as moral I may not and as related to gay marriage I don't think it is relevant to the discussion, if you do please explain why.

How is this not an equal rights issue?  For a lesbian to marry a man it would be forcing her to deny who she is as a person that isn't equal rights.  If marriage were to allow for the marriage of homosexuals that doesn't mean you would have to be homosexual to be married so please explain how this is asking for special rights?

I fail to see the analogy here.  No one is asking for the right to marry their sibling.  But to be honest who does that hurt?  Same with polygamy, as long as we are talking about consenting adults what is the problem?  Please explain your position.

It was once the cornerstone of our country's economy to own slaves or hire indentured servents, does that make either of them right?  How does allowing homosexuals to marry not bode well for anyone, including themselves?  Please explain.

Special as defined by dictionary.com..."distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual."

To me its a special right for a lifestyle group.  I wouldn't have the same right to marry a woman because I am not socially or biologically capable.  If homosexuality can be proven scientifically then broadening the definition of marriage would be the appropriate term imo. Until then its just a special interest group.

It wasn't the cornerstone of the entire country.  (Something like 10-11 states allowed slavery or supported it with laws about returning slaves--border states).  It took a CIVIL WAR to change it.

Are you suggesting our country, in which every state has this man/woman foundation, just about every religion, our tax system, and all social structure be thrown over to give a small special interest group the right to marry just because they want it?

Ok El-D I'm back.  So what wrong with legalizing homosexual marriage?

Lots.  Marriage is defined by God and nature and a wise society will protect marriage as it was intended.  Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy and assures every child he has a mother and a father.  Children need a loving mother and father.  A wealth of research over the past so many years has proven this.  The most loving mom in the world cannot teach her little boy how to be a man.  The most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. 

A gay man cannot teach his son how to love a woman nor can a lesbian teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a husband.  How do two dads help a girl when it comes to womanly things?  Unlike a mom they cannot share with her their first experience in what she's going thru.  Children need the loving daily influence of oth male and female parents to become whom they are meant to be. 

Can you imagine children of homosexual divorce go thru?  It's hard enough with a mom and a dad but what about the kid who finds himself with four moms or four dads?  Or more? 

Children do better with a mom and dad and will suffer with homosexual marriage.  Can you imagine if we continue along this track how many millions of motherless/fatherless children will be out there? 

Any two people who love each other and are committed to each other isn't the problem here.  People outside of marriage commit themselves to one another all the time for various reasons.  We don't necessarily have to call it marriage.  There are many kinds of loving commitments that are not definied as marriage.  Friends are committed to each other, a parent is committed to a child, a neighbor commited to another neighbor, grandparents are commited to their grandchildren.  All of them require a commitment but none of those commitments is called marriage. 

As far as this not being good for society look at the past.  There have been periods in history when homosexuality flourished for a time.....Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece and the Roman Empire are all examples.  None of these civilizations survived.  I believe we are following suit. 

Those countries (like Netherlands and Belgium) who actually legalized "gay marriage" and gave it equal status with traditional marriage impacted families in a negative way.  The impact of this is no longer speculative.  Just look at Norway, Denmark and Sweden whose leaders embraced homosexual marriages in the 90's.  The consequences for traditional familes has been devasting.  The institution of marriage in those countries is rapidly dying with many young couples living together or choosing to remain single.  In some areas of Norway 80% of firstborn children were conceived out of marriage as are 60% of subsequent births. 

The institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social order.  Everything valuable sits on that base.  Institutions, governments, religious fervor, and the welfare of children are all dependant on its stability.  When it is undermined the entire superstructure begins to crumble.  Just look at what's happened to our culture in the last 35 years thanks to liberal lawmakers, the entertainment industry, the radical feminists etc.  Many of our social problems can be traced to these beginnings. 

Marriage has always been the bedrock of culture in every continent.  Right now what I believe we're seeing all over the globe is an assault on the family.  Marriage is in the crosshairs and it will prove in the long run to be devastating. 

From a Christian POV  (for those who adher to such a value system) homosexuality is called sin.  Sin always seems pleasant at the first.  That's why we get so enticed.  It seems right and good initially and only later we realized we'd been had. 

There should be a clear distinction between a secular marriage contract (to establish rights of children and property) and a sacred one. 

If two people of any sex want to form a partnership of any combination let them and let the law handle that.  And if you have sacred laws that agree or conflict  . . . more power to youto handle it.