What is the argument for continuing to disallow legal marriage to adult gay couples?

';Religous'; beliefs aside (ie. God doesn't agree, the bible says, etc) , how is this justified? Keep in mind that hetero couples have the ability to legally marry regardless of their child producing/rearing plans.





For further clarification: a spiritual union (ie. the commitment ceremony) and legal marriage ( submitting a marriage certificate to the courts, automatically obtaining property and tax benefits, etc) are 2 seperate events. I'm asking about the legal marriage.What is the argument for continuing to disallow legal marriage to adult gay couples?
In the UK we have recently started to accept civil partnerships, which I hope is the first step towards a better gay marriage law. The difficulty is that a lot of pople think that ';marriage'; can only be between a man and a woman and a lot of people think that gay people don't deserve the same human rights as straight people, I hope that these views fall out of favour because there is no real difference and surely two people in a happy, commited relationship are better off than two single people that are living alone and miserable!What is the argument for continuing to disallow legal marriage to adult gay couples?
I could see fraud being a bigger concern than anything: two people who are not in love or otherwise, getting married because they are roommates and using that status to file jointly in taxes and get a better deduction or Earned Income Credit when they don't want to claim a standard deduction... but male-female unions have the same problem.





Legally, I have little problem with Gay Marriage, but not so much the gay part as I have a problem with Marriage in general. I think the legal rules of marriage for gay and straight unions should be adjusted to prevent divorces and help reduce the legal bottleneck it creates for courts and judges.





Perhaps making a 4 year application process where marriage benefits are slowly granted over the four years and when a license is granted at the end of the four years a couple can be finally married and granted the financial benefits. That way, hasteful marriages aren't done and people don't separate so often: if you can't make it waiting for four years, you shouldn't share your life with someone in the first place.
Simple as ';you can't mix business with pleasure';
Marriage evolved as an institution between men and women. The gay advocate groups are trying to give the same benefits to a very small minority who have no biological reason for needing it.





Why should 3%-5% of the population be allowed to override existing law?





Most states have civil union laws that more give rights to same sex partners.
If by 'gay' you mean homosexual rather than happy, which I assume by the rest of your question it's a very simple answer. Just look at the definition of marriage. In fact, let's look at just part of the legal definition: MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. (See http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm for a great deal more on this definition)





But of note is MAN and WOMAN. If the couple is the same sex, it is not, by definition, a marriage.
Why not let queer's marry? What's the harm? Let's also let people marry their pets. Why not let a woman marry her Minature Dachshund? What's the harm? How about adults and children? Can't see nothing wrong with that, can you? A guy can marry a sheep. No big deal to me. How about a father and his daughter? Hey, she really loves her Daddy 'cause he's sooo good to her. Look at Woody Allen. Not his real daughter, but that's merely a technicality. Would I get married? Not on your life. If I did, I'd lose half of everything I have the moment I uttered those fateful words that haunt my worst nightmares: ';I do';. Like a death sentence. Let the gays and the zoophiles and the pedaphiles have it. It's not for me.
I have a lot of gay friends, and I'm really torn on this issue. On one hand, I think they deserve the legal protections marriage can provide, but on the other hand, where do we draw the line? It's idiots like the woman who ';married'; a dolphin that endangers gay marriage. No, really - some woman married a dolphin. Check out this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972





THAT is the type of thing that makes people not want to change the existing marriage laws.





So what if her ';marriage'; isn't binding? She still did it, and that's what a lot of people who are against gay marriage worry about. How can you make gay marriage legal but not polygamy? Why shouldn't polygamists have rights, too?
First of all, the plumbing doesnt fit. You can't put two winkies together and two cracks together. It just dont work. A winkie was designed for a crack.
The fact that it is disturbing and unnatural is enough for me.