Gay Marriage.

Pro's Points Separation of Church and State Pro, rather ambiguously, invokes Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, Pro fails to elaborate on how granting gays the right to marry is somehow a violation of this precent. As presented by Pro, this is a baseless assertion. There is some mention of it being treated separately because "Gay Marriage is a falsity," but there is no elaboration on this point. Government recognized marriage isn't, in any form, a violation of Church and State since no religious aspects are acknowledged by the government in terms of its recognition of marriage. Marriage is a legal state between two individuals which, at their discretion, may be supplemented by religious ceremony. However, the inclusion or exclusion of religious ceremony to a marriage does not impact its legality. Furthermore, laws allowing or recognizing gay marriage include explicit statements affirming the protection of religious entities to decide, for themselves, what they consider to be a marriage[1]. The "patent" on marriage The reference to patents here is questionable. Creating something does not automatically confer a patent to the creator, nor was the act of marriage ever granted. Furthermore, simply being of the same sexuality as the patent holder does not grant you rights on how the patented idea can be used. If marriage was ever patented (and I'm pretty sure that's impossible) the patent would belong to the individual or group who actually patented, or their heirs should they be dead. Consequences The consequences identitied: the cataclysmic effect of giving a spoiled child a toy; reverse discriminationl destruction of traditional marriage; stealing children's free will; brainwashing; death, destruction, and the extinction of humanity. Lacking is how gay marriage will bring about these results. I could equally say that allowing gay marriage would harbor an unprecedented era of peace and prosperty, but without some sort of evidence or argument, assertions are worthless. Gays are spoiled/caged animals Pro asserts that Gays are spoiled and are like caged animals. I don't see why this means they shouldn't be married, even if the statements had merit. There is no reason to believe they have merit, though. Gays are denied a great many things, which is contrary to the notion of them being spoiled. Gays Want It Cool. They want it. So give it to them! Being Gay is a Choice While Pro's statements fly in the face of the established science it is more to the point to note that it is irrelevant to gay marriage. Why does it matter if they can choose to be gay? Conclusion Pro's arguments (or lack thereof) are either baseless assertions or irrelevant red herrings. Pro needs to elaborate as to how gay marriage is either prevented (via Church and State) or will result in the dire consequences he mentions. Otherwise, they are rightfully dismissed. References [1] "Affirmation of religious freedom. This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal"http://www.mainelegislature.org...