[newguy357]

... any two individuals have a right to join together in a civil marriage.

Why just two?

This needs to be asked again and again. It is mind-boggling that they have the gall to keep saying "any two individuals," which is entirely arbitrary once you've decided to throw away millennia-old definitions.

I had a girl at work once ask me (a few years ago) why I opposed gay marriage. When I pointed out that you couldn't legitimately limit it to two people if we allow gay marriage, she said, "Well, traditionally marriage has been between two people." To which I replied the obvious "traditionally it has been between a man and a woman." Pause.... ... ... "Good point."

[DuncanWaring]

The homosexual faction claims they have a “right” to marry.

Marriage has never been a “right”.

It’s been an obligation undertaken by two people prior to engaging in activity which might reasonably be expected to produce offspring, in order to maximize the liklihood that said offspring will survive to the age of self-sufficiency.

No activity by any homosexual couple can reasonably be expected to produce offspring; the concept of homosexual “marriage” is null and void.

[chimera]

Why just two people? If you're going to throw out ages-old conventions, why limit marriage to just between two people? Why not let you marry your dog, or a sheep, or a goat, or a horse? If anything goes, why not?

Throw it all right back in their ugly faces. Make them tell you why not these things if they're going to play the "Why not?" game on gay marriage.