Gay marraige.

Thank you for offering this debate topic. You say that it doesn't matter "what" you marry? So are you okay with the argument that Gay marriage will lead to human-pig marriages? Certainly recognizing my marriage to my pet pot-belly pig will hurt nobody. It is nobody's business and you should respect my decisions. I cannot help what I love. That tail is adorable! How could my love hurt anybody? Certainly it can't and there's nothing wrong with me loving my pig. Tolerance might be an issue but certainly there's always growing pains when pushing society's taboos. My different kind of love is clearly just as acceptable as the love felt between men and women, and isn't in the least creepy. Should I be allowed to marry clouds next? If the cloud evaporates should I get widower benefits? Conclusion: There is a line, and it's already been drawn, you're on the other side of it. Seriously though, what about polygamy? You aren't harming anybody, least of all your spouses who love you. Why should I be limited to marrying only one woman or man? Where does it stop? What about the sanctity of marriage? How long until we just start declaring people married after they've dated for a couple months. Start dating, get your marriage recognized, sign a prenup, and be "married" until you break up. There's a reason people view Gay marriage as a slippery-slope to the next leg being knocked out from under the institution. It's true! Marriage is becoming a joke. A bit of legal nonsense to convey this or that. We might as well start grabbing people off the street and declaring them married at this rate. Conclusion: Legalizing Gay marriage is a slippery slope. You argue that gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn't harm other people. Really, who would it harm? And the reason you want to push Gay marriage on to society is on the basis that it doesn't harm other people? So should I be allowed to engage in prostitution? It doesn't harm other people? Should I be allowed to inject heroin into my eye? It doesn't harm other people? Should I be allowed to slit my wrists? It doesn't harm other people? Should I be allowed to have sex with my brothers and sisters? It doesn't harm other people? What business is it of theirs? Really, if I want to engage my sister as a prostitute while high on drugs, slowly bleeding to death, nobody should object in the least! Who are they to judge me? How do such things hurt them? Conclusion: You cannot judge something acceptable based on harm. God established marriage to be between a man and a woman. To attempt to just redefine what God established is a little odd, to say the least. What next, baptism with milk? Move the Sabbath's to Saturday? Worship Judas? You cannot take a religious institution and just change its core values. That's moral relativism at the best. Conclusion: Desecration of religious institutions. Why not civil unions? Can't express your love in a civil union? There are some rights conveyed by a marriage and as tax paying citizens, homosexuals should be entitled to those rights. The state should make those right available to all people. But, those taxes are paid to the state and the state has no right to redefine a religious institution. I understand the need for equality. But you can have equality without spitting in Christ's face! Conclusion: Why does it have to be marriage? It doesn't! To quickly recap my arguments. 1) There is a line, and it's already been drawn, you're on the other side of it. In the presentation of your argument you put forward claims that reasonable people would clearly reject. Usually it's a stretch to offer that allowing gay marriage will lead to human-pig marriage, but you appear to already endorse that. 2) Legalizing Gay marriage is a slippery slope. Why does marriage need to exist at all? At the rate it's picked at, you will be able to get married at McDonalds after ordering some fries. Then get a divorce at Starbucks. 3) Desecration of religious institutions. Marriage is a religious institution. It is meant to help and foster the growth of children. I understand that you yourself are the child of a lesbian mother. And I'm sorry for that. Marriages allow for stable two-parent homes. They have worked and worked well for thousands of years. Why do you want to end them now? What right do you or the state have to deem an acceptable religious institution? What next? Are you going to have the courts demand an ex-communicated individual receive communion? This is certainly a disturbing trend, especially during a state of war. 4) Why does it have to be marriage? It doesn't! I understand that rights are conveyed, and I feel for you in this respect. However, rights are a state issue whereas marriage is a religious point. Why couldn't we simply settle on a civil union. Convey all the rights of marriage without the government redefining what a marriage is? Why must homosexuals get special rights? Thank you, and I eagerly await your reply.