And this law is taking away that right. It is forcing people to treat the unions as legitimate, regardless of their judgments. As it is, same-sex unions DO exist, and everyone can make up their own mind as whether or not they are going to accept such partnerships. What the same-sex marriage lobby seeks to do is override the capacity for making judgments that you cite, and force people to give what they may or may not be willing to give, violating their rights to do as they believe.

Exactly, and where the latter diverges from the former, it is to be avoided as oppressive and unjust.

How so? Rather, it is supported by long practice and pragmatism. Your own ideals have no basis beyond your own assertions.

What other kind of moral reasoning is there? Unless it is conventional, it has no legitimacy. Morality is not mutable or dynamic. As for those examples you cite, they still address the primary issue in marriage - equalizing the two different genders. Rules against or in favor of interracial or interfaith unions would still apply to same-sex unions, and the issues of gender do not.

Yes, my concept IS limited, by the inherent nature of the relationship. There is no need for a leveling institution in cases where no imbalance exists.

What makes that stance "principled" as opposed to the other? Why is YOUR preference a "principle" and mine not? As I said previously, you are only seeing through the lens of your personal preference, rather than any consistant underlying ideal. Mine is that everyone can practice as they wish, and dispose of their resources and property as they see fit, and that government has no right to outlaw OR mandate acceptance of religious practices. I have no right to tell two ass-pirates that they cannot shack up, and you have no right to make me treat their relationship as binding.

Yes, it's all about commitment, right? Let's all hear it for a commitment to indecision!

They have that. When or where has any serious attempt been made to revoke the voting rights of such people? Are saying that people will take their opinions more seriously because they are married according to the government? If anything, imposing a government-mandated acceptance of same-sex marriage will NOT change the hearts and minds of those who respect married people more, and will NOT enable homosexuals to shape the community.

They will have a benefit that is meant to accomodate certain biological and societal realities that are irrelevant to homosexual unions. Most of the practices of marriage came about in an effort to equalize what human biology made uneven. No such issue exists for same-sex partners. Neither partner has superior reproductive capabilities or encumbrances and neither is better suited for economic production. For instnace, insurance for spouses was a desired benefit, because originally, only one partner was capable of supplying a couple's income. Extension of health insurance to cover spouses was simply a recognition of the biological imperative, which A. are more or less obsolete now, and B. are irrelevant in a same sex relationship.

On the other hand, granting such privileges to an institution with no background or rooted tradition merely invites abuse. If, to cite the standard excuse about sharing insurance plans, a piece of paper issued by a city bureaucrat can require an employer to provide coverage to another person, what is to prevent a scam of this nature from being perpetrated by any two people? Because same-sex marriage has no social standing, there is no social stigma inhibiting such behavior. A person who did not see same sex marriage as binding would have no qualms about taking advantage of the benefits, all while avoiding the restrictions and commitment. In addition, the dissolution of limitations currently placed on the institution, would only exacerbate such abuses. As you cite elsewhere in this post, when the gender limitation goes, the number limit is logically next. A group could band together in a so-called marriage and partake of extensive benefits, regardless of what the original intent was in offering them. To prevent such abuses, layers of bureaucracy and extensive verifications will be needed, and the normal couples for whom the benefits were originally seen as necessary will be further encumbered. Either that, or the benefits and privileges will be revoked due to costs.

And? What is your point? I'm already oppressed, so why not a little more oppression? Turn it around. By your homosexual preference position, they are already discriminated against, so why not a little more discrimination?

Which ones? I defy you to cite the religious principle or rule that governs my position on homosexual privileges OR same-sex marriage. Coincidence is not causality.

Additionally, if you think that is the source of distaste for homosexuality (on the contrary, the most homophobic statements or reactions I have ever heard came from some of the most irreligious and sexually immoral people of my aquaintance), don't you see that ramming it down people's throats through legislation is an absurd tactic? The churches will still not marry people just because the government says so, and people who are guided by religious principles will still not accept such marriages as legitimate, and will view the participants as usurpers of whatever nebulous benefits you claim homosexuals will gain from same-sex marriage. Have you ever heard of the concept of "scorched earth?" People who are opposed to homosexual institutions on religious grounds will revoke the privileges and benefits of marriage, rather than allow them to benefit homosexuals. THAT is what people mean when they claim that same-sex marriage legislation will destroy marriage.