Upon some reflection, in fairness to Quint Essence, I feel I should qualify what transpires in my taboo household. Let’s see… we pay bills, argue about money, buy groceries, make dinner, do laundry, maintain a clean and comfortable living space…
Sometimes, though, we view pornography. And when lust overcomes us, we touch each other, and occasionally I’m compelled to sodomize my partner. 
Can you help?
Are you kidding me?
Moving this to Great Debates, for obvious reasons.
I’m afraid not. Check out our friend’s behaviour in this IMHO thread.
… but getting back to the more important topic at hand.
Other reasons gay marriage will affect, uhh, others:
(4) Heavy gay demand for reception centres and celebrants in summer and around Valentines Day will force more and more straight couples to get hitched by Elvis impersonators at drive-through Vegas wedding chapels. Oh, the horror.
(3) At the wedding of two men, the traditional garter game will be adapted into “toss the jockstrap”.
(2) The throwing of confetti or rice will be replaced by a hail of condoms. (Those packets have pointy ends–ouch.)
(1) The extreme possibility that we end up with married couples BOTH named John Smith, or Kate Jones. Confusion and comedic hijinks will ensue.
But that’s all I can think of.
Senator Santorum? Is that you?
Bestiality and pedophilia both involve sexual relations with a partner who is not a consenting adult. Homosexuality does not. Neither does heterosexuality. Therefore: BIG BIG difference.
The People of Massachusetts wrote the law that mandates gay marriage in Massachusetts when they adopted that state’s gender nondiscrimination amendment. That was ratified by popular vote, as I recall. The Supreme Court merely determined how the express will of the people applied to the question at hand.
So, once Massachusetts gets gay ‘marriage’, will you tireless crusaders of civil liberties then begin lobbying for legalization of polygamous marriages? Or is gay marriage all that is left to take care of, marriage-wise, for America to be a fair and just state? How about incestuous marriages? (Between consenting adults, of course!) ‘Nobody is being harmed’, as the mantra goes, so why not?
Somehow, through some divine favor, Western civilization has managed to survive for a couple of millenia without the institution of gay marriage. Since no compelling reason to change has been put forth, I see no reason to change. Polls indicate that most of America agrees, so I see this issue causing delightful torment to Mssr.Kerry, come election time.
Well, I certainly will.
Western civilization survived for centuries with legalized slavery. Why did we change it? Because it oppressed a group of people. Western civilization survived for centuries with no rights for women. Why did we change it? Because it oppressed a group of people. So now gays want to have the same rights as straights after centuries of being oppressed as a group. Exactly who does it hurt?
Yup, pretty much. Marriage-wise, anyway.
Well actually…yeah, why not? Well? Why not? First cousins can legally be married in many states - marriages which are recognized in other states. You’re implying that these things are bad, so explain - are they? WHY are they?
We managed to survive just fine without electricity, too…you against that? And no, they have no relation to each other, but I don’t see what gay marriage has to do with the survival of Western civilization, either.
Other than legal rights for the sexual and emotional partners of people who, though they’ve been together for decades, have no legal recognition that they are a couple. And I’m not talking about a dry legal brief called a “civil union.”
Polls indicate anything anyone wants them to, depending on who’s conducting it, where they’re conducting it, and in what segment of the population they’re conducting it.
All those people whose lives are constructed around the premise that they’re better than gay people because they’re not gay.
Fathers of bottoms everywhere are cringing at the prospect of having to pay for their sons’ fabulous gay weddings. 
Small factual mistake:
Though ANY document that deals with rights and duties is a “moral” document in the broad sense, the quote (“We hold these ruths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, …and…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…among these… life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”) is NOT from the US Constitution, it’s from the Declaration of Independence, which technically is not an enforceable law (which the Constitution is), but a statement of principles.
Actually, I’d have no problem with polygamous or incestuous marriages, assuming that the legal aspects could be worked out sufficiently. Should I attempt to prevent people from doing something that is not hurting anyone just because I happen to find it “icky”? That’s not much of a justification.
As has been mentioned, Western civilization has managed to survive without women having the right to vote for almost as long, so I fail to see your point.
The compelling reason to change is that a group of people is being denied something (marriage) based on their sexual orientation. You wouldn’t deny gays the right to vote, would you?
And polls two hundred years ago would have indicated that most of America would have agreed that women shouldn’t vote. America is all about protecting the rights of the minority, not enforcing the prejudices of the majority.
I will have been married 60 years next April and if gay marriages are allowed my wife and I will immediately divorce and never speak again.
As others have mentioned. I don’t see how gay marriages can be any more destructive of the custom than heterosexuals already are.
You want to know how gay marriages will effect heterosexual marriages? Just look at the way the sacriment of marriage has degenerated ever since they started allowing interracial marriages. All those poor white boys stollen away from their families by wicked black temptresses. It’s enough to make this boy cry (or at least whimper…I want a black temptress).
In the interest of self-disclosure, I should post my own feelings as well.
I have met many gay men and women, some of whom were in committed, decades-old relationships that looked and felt just like my own hetero marriage of 15 years. Meanwhile, I’ve watched several friends and family go through a divorce which tells me that hetero marriages are not the bastion of moral family life we would like them to be. I’m much more disturbed by pre-nups and Las Vegas/Gatlinburg.
What it comes down to is that my marriage is the result and reflection of the relationship that I have with my wife. I mean come on, the ceremony and the license were 15 years, three cities and two children ago. What sustains us now is our mutual love, respect and committment to a shared future. I have seen the same thing in some of the gay couples I’ve met, and for that reason, I see no reason why they can’t get a marriage license and enjoy the same legal status that my wife and I do. PQ, AFAIK, seems to have come the closest to what I’d like to see happen here in the States.
I think one of the reasons for the recent interest in gay marriage is that it is a natural extension of the civil and human rights movements of the past 30 years. Another reason is that we have gotten away from marriages of convenience and focused more on marrying for love (our current divorce rate notwithstanding).
As for Quint Essence, I’m sorry you can only see the world in black and white, and can’t get past the sex to see the rest of the relationship.
Vlad/Igor
I agree.
I said to a friend yesterday, I honestly do not and probably never will understand homophobia. What people do in their bedrooms is no business of mine, and why other people get so het up about it I cannot fathom. Besides that, whether anyone personally finds gay sex distasteful has no bearing on whether gays should be given the legal right to marry. There are straight couples who engage in sexual behavior that many people might find distasteful too, yet no one is even suggesting denying them their rights.
No one has yet provided me with one solid reason why allowing gays to marry would endanger my marriage or anyone else’s. I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that heterosexual Canadian marriages are falling apart, and we even have some anecdotal evidence in this thread that it’s not made the slightest difference.