Why should gay marriage not be legal?

Yep. There's no good answer I've ever gotten on here.

The one that is a boldfaced lie is that if we grant gay marriage rights then it will mean legalizing polygamy, incest, Pedophilia, or bestiality. This is absurd because it is fine to say that all citizens have the right to form a union with another citizen for the purposes of family. This doesn't need to be extended at all. So other than that, there is no good answer to your question.

I like the civil union nonsense above too. I say we take this farther and create separate categories for everyone. So Men get Driver's licences, and women get Operator's permit (since what they do isn't naturally 'driving'). Whites can get 'Gun licenses' while Asians can get 'weapon permits'. Let's create separate names and little digs at the inequality just because that's really helpful and democratic...comeon.

I love the argument that they'd have to redefine the word "marriage" because it means "between a man and a woman". Yeah that's one of the definitions. The other one is "a merger between 2 consenting parties". Gay marriage falls under that one.

Also until we as a society mangle other words constantly. Irony has been redefined to mean coincedence. No one can pronounce Forte anymore (it's pronounced fort, without the e). If we can butcher every other part of the english language, why not this one?

The argument that civil unions should be good enough is pathetic as well. They don't guarantee the same rights as marriages. The poster who said that Gays asking for marriage, just like straight people, are asking for special treatment is horribly ignorant. That's like saying blacks are allowed to ride the bus, just as long as they ride in the back.

Marriage is a government institution that has nothing to do with religion. The church shouldn't have any say in it. They should have the right to deny gays to have services on their properties. This might open them up to lawsuits, which seems unfair that the church could be sued because of something that's against their religion. It's also unfair that the church is supposed to be kept out of government, but they donate money to politicians.

The First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By allowing homosexuals to marry their "partner", especially if invoking the 14th Amendment, you now set up church's that refuse to perform such marriages to discrimination lawsuits due to equal protection laws. Catholic Charities in Massachusetts closed its adoption services rather than potentially face such a lawsuit for refusing to adopt children out to homosexual couples. Since charity is a form of worship, their First Amendment rights have been violated by extension (no law was broken, no suit threatened, but rather than keep it open and take the risk, they closed down).

What about the Methodist Organization in NJ that had its tax exempt status revoked for denying a lesbian couple the use of their property for their commitment ceremony? Sure, they opened that property up to other groups, even held a Davy Jones concert there (think The Monkees), so the state decided that it was uniformly wrong to deny this lesbian couple the use of the property because of those previous uses. The problem is, none of the other uses went against church teachings (music is NOT banned in the Bible) the way this commitment ceremony did. That's not a First Amendment Violation?

Nothing in the Constitution demands that religious practices be private.

To those who compare this fight to inter racial marriage, I ask you this: what has the fight over marrying a member of the opposite sex and another race have to do with allowing marriage between members of the same sex? Nothing. Do you remember that those against lifting such bans were challenged to use the Bible to back up their claims? Yes they were, and no one could point to where in the Bible it said that inter racial marriage was wrong. You can find MANY passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testament.

By the way, to those who say Jesus never spoke of marriage, I suggest you read Matthew 19: 3-9. This covers not only marriage, but divorce and sexual immorality as well. Mark 7:21 covers sexual immorality even better.

Edit: To those who favor Civil Unions, I must disagree. The problem with civil unions is that it wreaks of condescension. It is actually more unfair to homosexuals than just telling them no.

I believe that marriage should be an individual's choice. I don't believe anyone has the right to tell two people that love each other that they shouldn't be married. It is like telling two people that wan't to have children that the world thinks they should not have children together and would not make good parents.

If people don't believe in gay marriage then it is a choice to educate your children that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I know there are controversial issues regarding this, but I am pro-choice and I think each person should make their own decision how they want to live out their life and it shouldn't be for someone else to decide.

No, nonetheless civil partnerships are commonly the identical factor, granting authorized rights and so forth. as they could in a wedding. The important change is that the ceremonies can not be implemented in a church or different devout constructing. However a few church buildings now will participate in civil partnership social gathering offerings, this could contain having the genuine civil partnership rite in a registry workplace, then having a separate provider within the church - slightly like the best way Charles and Camilla married.

Because if we allowed gays to marry, the economy would go to hell, unemployment would skyrocket, the auto industry would be in collapse, we would be in wars in the middle east, and a black man would get elected President.

Oh wait, all that is happening anyway. Might as well allow it then.

They want to keep the "traditional" definition of marriage

"A union between a man and woman of the same race". That is the definition used in all but the last 42 years of this nation's history.

Because by Bill Clinton's DOMA, a marriage is an act between a man and a woman, They can be gay; doesn't matter.

Anything else is a civil union.

You can put a ball gown on a meth hooker; she's not a princess.

there is no reason a side from fear. people are afraid of change... its in the nature of some people i guess.... if you do want to help or learn more about what is being done for gay marriage please join us at http://www.couragecampain.org/

Why are gays not happy with civil unions when they get the same rights? For gays it is not about marriage, it is the principal of wanting to be accepted and trying to promote their lifestyle even when their are those who don't agree with it. It is just another case of the minority trying to usurp the majority.