If this is your condition, then you must refrain from using the word "marriage", which carries with it the legal (secular) recognition of a religious (biblical) contract.
This is like endorsing the practice of identity theft - All ID Thieves do is merely amend the definition of some other person's name and personal data to include themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way is fully comparable.
Civil unions? Fine. Don't make me pay for them (through tax-funded insurance programs, insurance industry broad-base rate retrenchment to cover newly expected losses, etc.). Don't make me endorse them, either - it trods heavily on my own religious freedoms (at least until they completely redefine "religious").
All right. Marriage as a public institution is a bit more concerned about the structure of society than it is about the so-called special rights of particular groups. In other words, the state gives breaks to married couples because the tendency in marriage is toward producing children (which is flatly impossible within a same-sex 'marriage'), and those children will grow up to be--hopefully--upstanding, productive members of society.
For arguments in a similar vein, but in a different format, see the following article.
We can if we want to. Political freedom.
these people want to be recognized by the state so they can have the same rights as everyone else in terms of taxes, benefits, etc...
No, they don't. They want the State to recognize and "sanctify", viz. by sanctioning, their couplings, as a countervailing sanction against the Levitical and New Testament moral sanctions against their homosexuality.
They want marriage because they want to rebuke and silence those who reject homosex as immoral, amoral, and abominate.
if anyone tells me why they should not be extended these same privileges then i will listen.
This is the homosexuals' argument, and a dishonest one. The two percent, the proponents of radical change, bear the onus of attempting to prove their case to the rest of us, not we to them. Nice try, though.
one thing though: you may not bring religion into the argument at all.
You wish! Nice of you to offer to make the rules for all the rest of us, though. I'll argue anything I want, thanks.
Oh, I see, you attribute logical opposition to same sex marriage entirely to church, rather than state, and then prohibit discussion about that church you referred to. How sporting of you.
But even on your terms, the reality is that, in terms of the law, the ability to obtain a certificate of marriage is not dependent in any way, shape or form upon any religious stamp of approval. It is, however, dependent upon one man and one woman applying for a marriage license, whether the justice of the peace knows they are atheists, agnostics, muslims, jews, buddhists, unitarians or otherwise.