Your position, however, negates you from making the consent argument. The heterosexual component is essential to marriage. If you deny that, then how can you claim that anything else about marriage is essential?

As for consent, the APA will never move from the stance that children cannot consent to romantic relationships. They have, however, along with much of the medical community, admitted that homosexuality (in cases NOT involving lengthy prison terms) in most people is perfectly healthy and likely genetic.

Trollman, if you want to have a little ceremony, then for chrissakes marry your shoe! I think, personally, that the government should preside over civil unions and the church should preside over marriage (though both should be recognized by law). I can’t figure out why you guys keep refusing to accept the consent argument. It is, in fact, quite valid.

The gay KKK is showing its true colors by protesting outside the Mormon temple on Westwood. Not a single one has condemned the bigoted TV ad that can be seen on youtube.

Just listened to a discussion about this on a local talk show.

Funny how they’re going after the Mormons, when – as this article shows – the group that put the amendment through were minorities.

The Mormons are just a start. To all my brothers and sisters of faith here: the time has come to lock, load, and pray hard. You’ll be next.

Second, why is consent even important? Sure, consent is important when talking about humans, but why should consent matter when talking about marrying shoes? Shoes have no feelings. They cannot be hurt. So who cares if you marry a shoe?

Why should we care if animals aren’t able to give consent? As long as you are not inflicting pain on them, what is that to you? Animals are property.

More to the point, AniMEL:

What if it’s my lifestyle choice to believe consent isn’t necessary? Or that young children can give consent?

How can the argument be made that it’s okay to discriminate against me and my lifestyle because you think consent is necessary for relationships or marriage?

And I take offense to being told that my logic allows people to “marry” children or animals. Consent is a major issue. Children cannot consent to this sort of thing, which is why we have age of consent laws. Animals can never consent because they don’t have a free will. That is one argument that cannot be torn down.

If we accept your premise that consent is essential to the definition of marriage, and that the number 2 is essential, then you still have no basis for rejecting incest.

Second, why is consent even important? Sure, consent is important when talking about humans, but why should consent matter when talking about marrying shoes? Shoes have no feelings. They cannot be hurt. So who cares if you marry a shoe?

Why should we care if animals aren’t able to give consent? As long as you are not inflicting pain on them, what is that to you? Animals are property.

The more we argue, the clearer it becomes that you are being entirely arbitrary. You are making special exceptions for same sex couples, without good reasons for doing so.

We, as a society, do have good reasons for giving special status to man/woman relationships – they provide more utility to the society than any other form of relationship. SSM just cannot be successfully argued.

History will not be kind to people who make such hurtful and outrageous ill-informed statements and ridicule the very real desire among gay couples to be married.

Omu, as I said earlier, history is merely a recording of what has happened. God is the ultimate judge of everyone for their actions on this earth. At the judgment seat He will reward faithful Christians, although some will get greater reward than others. The believers will enter into Heaven and the non-believers will be cast into the lake of fire. It has nothing to do with what we do on this earth, other than our relationship with God.

I will also repeat that true Christians don’t hate anyone because we are trying to be like God (not be a god, but to be more like Him). He loves all humans (we were, after all, created in His image) and we are to love others, no matter what sin they might have committed. Just because we don’t tolerate the sin doesn’t mean we hate the sinner.

Finally, EQ-01 repeats my earlier point. Once we start down the slippery slope it will be an open floodgate for what even you agree is deviant behavior, pedophilia, incest, or whatever the ‘flavor of the day’ happens to be. But, then how will you justify stopping their ‘rights’ from being imposed upon all of us since, according to you, to do so is hurtful?

And I take offense to being told that my logic allows people to “marry” children or animals.

But you refuse to answer our question directly, so I’ll repeat it:

Where do we draw the line? If you argue it’s discriminatory to maintain traditional marriage between one man and one woman, how can we POSSIBLY argue that it’s not discriminatory to limit marriage to two adult human beings?

And, indeed, our prediction is coming true: In Germany, a couple sued to make their incestuous marriage legal.

Civilization doesn’t die overnight, it bleeds to death with 1,000 cuts.