extremely misleading title. how can you call this "mariage equality" when it still excludes large portions of people who seek to get marriage. it still discriminates on many forms of marriage.

people still cant marry 3 wifes and 2 husbands, people still cant marry their mom, sister or dad. people still cant marry people under 18 (18 years is a very arbitrary cut off for consent) why cant a 14, 15, 16, or 17 year old give consent. and though this may be a bit of a stretch, people still cant have sex/and or marry with animals. now i know you will say animals cant give consent. but i fail to see when said animals gave consent to me cooking them and putting them on my plate to eat, i fail to see when they gave the butcher consent to slaughter it, i fail to see it give consent to pet owners, who own them, control them, and dictate what the animal does in its life. i fail to see when it gave consent to be euthanized when it is no longer wanted by the owner/or for age related reasons. We can own, eat, kill, control animals without consent, but we cant have sex or marry the animal.

So no, this isnt marriage equality, this is homosexual couple marriage.

while i think marriage is between one man and one women, i also dont believe its governments job to regulate marriage. i think government should get out of the marriage business all together.

@ninetailschris

I would like to accommodate your request, but the problem is your post is in no way relevant to my post. I seriously tried to understand where you were coming from. Either you are misinterpreting what I meant by Segregation which is hard to see since I provided a definition, or you are working off some internal dialogue that isn't taking place in my head. Don't assume anything, and lay it out for me logically. To be honest it all seems to be completely off topic.

@Max King of the Wild

If he can't explain this to me. Then would you be so kind as to explain it to me. What the hell is he talking about?

The thing about animal consent when we ate them it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

so instead of debating my point, which was really not important in my overall argument, you obfuscate.

it is actaully quite a logical train of thought. it is widely accepted they we get to kill, cook, eat, own as property, sell as property, control animals. All of that is widely considered morally Ok, but people cant have sex with the animal? what is so dumb aboutseeing gross inconsistancies in what we are allowed to do to animals.

They just denied a constiutional ban on gay marriage here in minnesota. The arguments that people who putting up for why gays should not get married is because it's against their religion, and marriage is a religious event. If we change the government we are impeding on their religious freedom they say. Everyone would be happy if the government was not involved in the first place. One of the guys was whining about how catholic charities were blocked from federal aid because for adoptions because they refused to adopt to gay parents.

People who want freedom of religion should want government out of religion. When your church is taking money from the government, your church's values are compromised just like a politician who takes money from corporations. If you want freedom of religion get government out, and everyone will be happy.

Just thought I would point out that in 2006 I voted against the proposition in Colorado that made gay marriage illegal. Though it was good today to see people not caring about how others live there lives.

I'm not interested in debating you... I've seen how you debate, it doesn't make any change as it seems you can't change your mind.

And if that's a logical train of thought, then Donald Trump is Einstein. 

so killing and eating, and controling in every capacity = OK. having sex with = no no no. thats wrong.

got it. consistancy in arguments have never been a strong suit in the pro-marriage (and largely anti- "mariage equality" crowd.

They had marriage equality before. Gay men were just as equally allowed to marry women as straight men, and straight men were just as equally banned from marrying men. Same with gay/straight women.

So why did you say you were neutral on the subject ?