[Dimensio]

This is nothing more than a benefits grab, plain and simple.

Well, I guess that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. The same can be said of allowing opposite-sex marriage -- for what reason would an opposite-sex couple seek to have their union legally recognized except as a "benefits grab"?

Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman.

Except where it's been an institution between a man and multiple women.

If we legitimize gay marriage, one only wonders what might be next.

Only those without a sense of perspective or the ability to understand the problem with apples and oranges comparisons.

Before you laugh this one off, please tell me why the gay rights marches have included members of NAMBLA in them without condemnation.

They have? I'm sure that you could point to a recent occurance. Now further deviant groups, emboldened, will also seek legitimacy.... and will threaten lawsuits if not given the same endorsement from government.

State the nature of these "deviant groups", and I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to point out how their "cause" and their demands are not on par with same-sex marriage benefits.

Two products of Massachutsetts this year: John Kerry and gay marriages.

The Internet is a source of both Freerepublic and child pornography. Shall I condemn the former because of the latter's derivation from the same source?

(before anyone squawks, and I know that someone without reading comprehension will squawk, my point is that Freerepublic is not at all like child pornography).

[CurlyBill]

First off, I really don't understand why you are here and the the DU. Let me respond to your points ... briefly because I don't have much time.
Except where it's been an institution between a man and multiple women.

This was a bastardization of marriage by a relatively small group of people, and it is no longer legal in the one state (Utah) where it was accepted.Only those without a sense of perspective or the ability to understand the problem with apples and oranges comparisons.

This is a vague statement that can be applied during any debate.They have? I'm sure that you could point to a recent occurance.

Ummm.... do you watch the news? NAMBLA has been involved in gay marches and protests througout the last 10 to 15 years. They have marched with them on a number of occasions, including the NY St. Patrick's Day "alternate" parade. Very few homosexuals have condemned them.State the nature of these "deviant groups", and I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to point out how their "cause" and their demands are not on par with same-sex marriage benefits.

My point here is that this opens a legal door to all kinds of things. If you need specificity here, the sky is the limit. Group marriages, polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia, beastiality, the list can go on and on. Of course, gay rights advocates will maintain that it has to be between "consenting adults" ... but if you can change the language from "a man and a woman" why can't it be changed to "consenting parties" or even have it eliminated altogether?The Internet is a source of both Freerepublic and child pornography. Shall I condemn the former because of the latter's derivation from the same source?

Your apples and oranges argument applies here. I'm throwing it back at you for the shear ridiculousness of it.

I don't know if you are a homosexual or not, and I really don't care. I just don't understand why many homosexuals feel the need to flaunt it and throw it into everyone's faces. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind. It is not biologically natural.... and that is not a point that can be argued.