I'll be voting to keep it. I'm sure alot of ppl will do the same

ya cause i'm sick of all this bullshit for no reason, just pass it and be done with it

i havn't made up my mind about this subject, personally and religiously, but its time to move on we are wasting too much time to justify why it should not happen, thier isn't too much harm done if we allow it to pass

You're like a button. Someone presses you and you spit out the same shit over and over.

There's a clear difference between consentual marriage and a marriage between, say ... a 12 year old girl and a 50 year old man (I don't know how old you are by the way). Society objects to protect the girl, who is considered not yet of age to make such a life decision for herself. Who is society protecting, by not letting two men or two women marry?

?

How is it intellectually consistent that society can make one determination and not the other?

Humans generally do not reach maturation until the age of 21, when most people of well mind are considered to be fully developed. It is because of this fact that laws have been established, laws which make it a federal offense for an adult to engage in a relationship with a minor. This is because it is accepted that many people who are under age (18) are still growing physically, mentally, and sexually. These restrictions are put in place to prevent scenarios where older people take advantage of younger ones. Specifically because it is not a real relationship they are seeking, but one purely based on the aesthetic appeal of younger flesh. It's one person taking advantage of another person, in other words, a violation against humanity itself.

Care to try again?

Of course. You answered the question as to why society could make the determination that a man and child can't marry (with which I agree in the first place), but you failed to address why society, if it has the legal standing to make that first determination, doesn't have the legal standing to make the other, which was what I was getting at.

Care to try again?

Disallowing minors to marry involves the intention to protect said minor.

Disallowing same-sex couples to marry involves the intention of...?

The question is "how is it intellectually consistent to say society has the power over saying who can marry in one situation but doesn't have the power in the other situation." If you give society the power in the first case, how can you say the power is justified if they don't have the power in the second?

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 30 2009 12:15am

One case is justifiable, the other is not?

I believe I answered this, it's entirely contingent on the intent and reason for such recognition of disallowance.

So in other words, if society deems it unjustifiable (because society has the power) to allow same sex marriage, you're going to be O.K. with that, right?