I know this has probably been done before but...

[Ebowed]

Full marriage rights.  Civil unions are a form of "separate but equal" thinking.

I can already tell this is going to be a hot topic. Anyway, I voted for No Recognition. (Hey, everyone, let's laugh at that stupid homophobe Willy Woz!)

What's your reasoning?  Do you support recognition for heterosexual couples?

[Ebowed]

Willy Woz, you don't need to go on a rant about freedom of belief after stating your opinion.  That's an indication you don't have any good, relevant arguments to defend your position, since no one is banning homophobia.

May I ask why you find homosexuality to be immoral, and, regardless of your reasoning, why does this mean that there should be no recognition for same-sex couples?

[Ebowed]

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Ebowed]

Why do we outlaw polygamy?

Because the members of the marriage cannot be treated equally.  Not that this is really a pressing issue anyway, since no one outside of the Utah/Arizona border cares about polygamy.  Why do you bring it up?

[Ebowed]

How do you know they can't be treated equally.

Historical perspective.

And what if they don't mind being treated unequally?

Well, I don't care whether they live together or anything.

Who are you to legislate what's being fair in a marriage?

I'm not "legislating" anything.  I am arguing in favor of extending recognition of marital couples to those containing two people of the same sex.

Point is - if you can legislate polygamy, you can legislate homosexuality.

Yes, and you can also legislate fornication, ban oral sex, or ban contraception.  But I won't, since that's stupid reasoning, Inks.

[Ebowed]

Ban oral sex?  Non sequitor fallacy here.

Well, that went right over your head.

Your argument is that if we can ban polygamy, we should accordingly ban same-sex marriage.  I mentioned oral sex to demonstrate the stupidity of that reasoning.

[Ebowed]

That's because oral sex has nothing to do with marriage - it's a form of pleasure, and one which I do not consider to be actual sex (defined as a loss of virginity).

You really don't get it.

I am saying that homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy.  You have not given me any evidence to believe otherwise.

[Ebowed]

I Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin.

That isn't politically relevant.  Can you justify that homosexuality is immoral or undesirable with your own thinking?

It has to do with legislating who can marry who.

I am still not seeing the connection between polygamy and homosexuality.  What exactly is the similarity?

[Ebowed]

Because as a Christian, I don't think the government should give benifits for sin.

The right to see your dying partner in the hospital is not a benefit for sin.

And polygamy - the similarity is that you think that we sould be able to outlaw marrying multiple people, but not marrying people of hte same sex.

No, I support restricting marriage to two people.  You're making arbitrary distinctions again.

[Ebowed]

Every other good marriage that we see is heterosexual.  All the homosexuals are punished.  The absence of the opposite proves this, kinda like gravity - sure, there's no way to prove it works 100% of the time, but we've never seen it do anything else.

You have yet to convince me why we should use the Bible as the standard from which to base our marriage laws.

[Ebowed]

Because we were founded on Biblical (not Christian, but Biblical) principles.

Nope.  Do you have any secular reasons to prohibit two people who love each other from getting married?