Gay marraige.

I'm glad you understand what makes marriage special. And that you acknowledge that marriage is a sacred institution. However, you are still advocating pecking away what makes it special and making it just a sheet of paper? Let me point out that you did not address any of my points. What about polygamy? If I love many people what right do you have to prevent this? Why can't I actually marry my pig? Other than shuttering, you never one suggested WHY this argument fails. The logic is pointing out that your same argument can be applied much broader than you acknowledge (why does the logic you use fail for my pig). Which brings us to another argument I made, which you didn't address at all, redefining marriage is a slippery slope. If you can redefine it with respect to love, then you can expand it to include multiple partners as well as anything you "love". Why should we redefine marriage? Slip-ups are fine. Everybody makes mistakes. But where's the beef? Where's the argument. Love is love. Yeah. What does that have to do with this argument? Stay out of people's bedrooms. Okay, I wasn't going in their bedrooms. I was simply pointing that gutting a sacred institution on weak grounds is a bad idea and the only response you have is sorry for the slip up? You say that marriage is a basic right? There's nothing basic about it. And you have a basic right to a sacred institution? Really? The communion is a sacred institution too, can I barge into a Catholic Church and demand to receive communion even though I'm not Catholic? I have no interest in stopping people from doing "their business" in "their own bedrooms" -- I am interested in protecting marriage from being gutted by confused arguments about how everybody has a right to religious institutions. And finally, another argument you never addressed, what about civil unions? There are clearly rights being conveyed here. And those rights need to be distributed evenly, but why as a marriage? What is wrong with a civil union? Why can't people do their business, have their rights, and not bother anybody? Why does this need to be foisted into a marriage. If I am to hold your arguments valid, I should hold the same argument for polygamy or random walk up marriages between strangers? Civil unions would convey those rights you seem so clearly in favor of, they need not "just" be anything. I'm not defining their relationship, and you can't define what marriage means. You seemed to have dodged my arguments, failed to address them, and respond with arguments I already covered. I don't care what people do in their lives, I think they should be given rights. I don't however think you should weigh down the sacred institution of marriage with all of *YOUR* baggage. Let the state convey them rights. Let us stay out of their way. Let us do a number of things. However, let us not have one of those things involve tossing a several thousand of year old institution out the window because you want to dictate what kinds of unions God should respect. Let us not force on religious institutions our moral ideas about what is right and wrong. Let us not redefine marriage when we can easily rectify any wrongs being done by the state without doing wrongs upon the religion! How about that? We don't hinder homosexuals' rights AND we don't hinder religious rights? Equality and tolerance, who'd of thunk it possible? Where do you get off saying you have "*way* more love in my life than you" -- you don't even know me or how much love I have in my life. Your summary is accurate to your statements, insofar as it misses the entire point. How does protecting a sacred institution suggest your mother is somehow negative? I am not saying that anybody's love is wrong: not the man with three wives, not the gay couple from Soho, not the man with his pig (these may be wrong, I'm just not saying it). I am saying that you cannot just blow the gates open and say everybody/thing can be married now. There are certain things people shouldn't trample. And as you said, you understand what makes marriage special, and yet you want to make it not special? -- Odd. How about we respect the rights of people and religion. Civil unions are fine if rights must be conveyed. You don't need to undermine marriage to live and let live. You don't need to undermine marriage to convey rights. You simply, do not need to undermine marriage at all. Thank you for the debate. I do wish you would have responded to my points. I made a considerable effort to make them clear and understandable and yet you still didn't address them. You spent a lot more time talking about your mother than you did on why I should accept redefinition of a sacred institution on your say so. Considering I'm arguing for the status quo you should need to present some case for your side of the argument. You, not only, didn't give much of an argument, you didn't address mine. I should need to address your argument, rather than you failing utterly to address mine. Though, again, thanks for the debate. Tatarize.