Whoa there pardner...you're telling me I HAVE to accept that a gay man or gay woman should be allowed to marry those of the same gender? I am afraid not. While I agree that it is a state, not federal issue, I don't have to accept that homosexuals have the same right to the same marriage that is afforded to heterosexuals. There should be be measures that allow a same sex couple the legal rights in insurance coverage, matters of estate, and the rights of medical visitation/decision making, but extending marriage to include gays isn't it. Marriage is well defined between man and woman and to confuse it with the union of man and man or woman and woman just opens the door for man and women (not a typo, polygamy), man and beast, or other combination that has man paired up with some other relationship that challenges the moral fiber of the sanctity of marriage.

When we start accepting everybody's concept of a perfect utopia, where does that leave us? The church has already become so watered down with the acceptance of certain values, that we don't even resemble a moral authority anymore. If Moses had accepted that the people were going to worship the Golden Calf and allowed that to go on, the Israellites would never have reached the Promised Land. We as Christians have to draw the line on moral tolerance somewhere and the bonds of HOLY matrimony are already well defined. Also, the people in California, probably THE most homosexually populated state in the union have spoken clearly that they do NOT want gay marriage, and if the people say they don't support gay marriage, why should we be forced to accept it from a government that is supposed to be of the people,by the people, and for the people?

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people means all the people - not just some or the slight majority. Tyranny of the majority anyone?

Question - I've heard the argument about opening the door for polygamy and bestiality before, but what I don't understand is where the logic for it lies. Marriage is a governmental institution - also a religious one, but since being undertaken by the government as a contractual agreement wherein certain rights are extended, it is primarily a governmental institution and therefore must be treated as such. In that light, it is two *consenting* adults that come under this contract. Why would it ever be extended to include animals? We do not currently allow humans and animals to be contractually bound together...

The polygamous thing I could see a tad...it's a religious value that some people hold and therefore could possibly argued as a religious discrimination thing. I don't think it would matter much to me there either - as long as there are adults consenting (I think the bad rep comes from children being forced to wed along with incestual realtions), and it's understood that if one of the wives leave, that's alimony plus child support...they all leave and you are one screwed pooch. We don't have laws restricting men from having multiple children with multiple women and so forth.

Further, I think you can also look at where you sit on the "why" argument - do people choose to be gay or are they born that way? If you think it's a choice, then your arguments stand valid in a certain legal stance I suppose...but if one is born that way, then the restriction on their rights to equal opportunities (a marriage contract) is VERY apparent.

Chris,
I think you should live with a gay couple for 30 days. I think in the end you will realize it is no different than how you and your wife/girlfriend live so why not allow gay marriage.