I just want Gay marriage supporters to tell me why poltgamist/polyamourous marriage shouldn't be allowed. If you are going to drop the man-woman part why hold so tight to the monogamous part? Bi-sexuals and polys deserve to have their love treated as equally as homosexuals.

An argument could be made that the government should not recognize marriage of any kind since marriage is primarily a religious based thing. The government could move towards only granting civil unions and let churches have their sanctity of marriage.

Because then the Republicans won't have anything to scare people with and people might actually start giving a shit about REAL issues instead of how the family next door is living their life.

What if the woman can not give birth due to disease? What if the man had a vasectomy? No from what you just said you just invalidated every marriage where the couple does not want to have kids or can not have kids. Wouldn't that be ridiculous? I don't think there is anything you can say against gay marriage that would be morally justified. Instead you have to argue against the institution of marriage and its religious and cultural background; make a union secular and purely government validated. Hope I helped and good luck!

The best argument I could have for this is child custody in a divorce between a gay couple. I'm assuming that in some cases of homosexual marriage there can be instances in which one of the partners is the biological parent to the child and the other may not be (e.g. gay man has a woman artificially inseminated and then the other gay partner adopts the child). In cases like these, although there may be one biological parent both (presumably) have been a caregiver to the child. Suppose they divorce, should the biological parent get all of the rights or should both be given equal custody? How would it be fair for the biological parent to give up their rights to a (since they are divorced) unrelated person? On the flip side, someone who has helped raise the child should get equal rights to see the child since they helped finance and raise the child alongside the biological parent.

Too many databases and software apps would need to be changed to accomodate same sex marriages.

Because marriage should not be a legal issue at all. We should abolish marriage certificates for everyone. Its a private matter.

I've heard some people argue that the state shouldn't be in the business of who marries whom at all. It shouldn't be a legal thing, if two people want to go to a church and "get married" they can but it's got nothing to do with the government. So I guess that counts as being against gay marriage.

If you assume that two consenting adults expressing their love (and a modest enough view of their sexuality for you to know what gender they prefer) is moral then gay marriage is moral. But the other side of the debate assumes the opposite of that. Look at the Justice series on Youtube, Michael Candel (sp?) goes over this discussion from both sides. The main reason presented in the is that if you legalize gay marriage, you are automatically sanctioning it. If it's a law, then society is saying: "we as Americans approve of gay marriage, the purpose of marriage is for two people to be linked together no matter their gender." This is something I would be fine with - but if your religion (or moral code or whatever) doesn't agree, then you might have a problem. I believe this is a teleological argument (what is the Purpose of marriage). If you link homosexuality (or sexuality among consenting adults) to morality, then recognizing gay marriage would be the equivalent of society approving of something you think is wrong. This says nothing about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, only that as a democracy, our government speaks for all of us.

If gay people are happy the anti-depressant pill companies won't get as much money.