[DuncanWaring]

The fundamental issue is that there is no “Right to Marry”.

Marriage has classically always been an obligation taken on by couples prior to engaging in activity that might reasonably be expected to produce children.

Homosexual activities can reasonably be expected NOT to produce children.

Therefore there’s no obligation for homosexuals to marry, and certainly no “right”.

[Dilbert San Diego]

And based on what you are saying, a homosexual relationship does not have as much importance to society as a heterosexual couple. So it makes sense to treat the homosexual couple differently under the law, since the underlying relationship is not as important. Yes that hurts the self esteem of the liberal community to say that, but it’s true.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. Marriage is a privilege and is only available if one is capable of undertaking the obligations that come with it and two people agree to marry each other to assume them. It is not an entitlement. Not every one is suitable for marriage and to assume there exists a right to marry misunderstands both the nature and the purpose of the institution.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[RWB Patriot]

“The fundamental issue is that there is no “Right to
Marry”.”

I’ve pointed that out twice, and both times, the other side pointed to the “pursuit of happiness” right.