To answer the question of why gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, we must first answer the question of why we value the institution of marriage in our society. Today, America needs strong marriages more than ever, but what does this mean? Is this a legal issue, equal rights issue, moral issue or all three? Why even have marriage? There must be some deep rooted reason why evolution of the human species included the institution of marriage between a man and a woman creating a "traditional" nuclear family for you Darwinist. If so, are those evolutionary reasons still valid or are they dogmatic? If it was to facilitate survival of the humans as hunters and gatherers in tribes, are those conditions still present today? Primative tribes today do not recognize gay marriages. Why? Fertility rituals are still performed. Infant mortality rates are very high. These are the conditions are ancient tribal ancestors dealth with but do we today in modern society? If you want to know why there is so much debate about this, look at evolution. The idea of tradtional marriage is embedded in us at an emotional and even genetic level that may no longer be valid. Recently, many states have adopted Gay Marriage. Here are the reasons people say it should not be approved but what do you all think?

- Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman..

- Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.

- Gay relationships are immoral.

- Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species.

- Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.

- Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.

- Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.

- Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.

- Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.

- Sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently.

- Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples.

- Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so.

- Just not comfortable with the idea because it is somehow different.

- It offends everything religion stands for and has stood for regarding the tradition.

- Gay sex is unnatural and the thought of gay sex is repulsive

- The thought of gay sex is repulsive.

- They might recruit and everyone would turn Gay.

Comment #1 (Posted by Robert V.) I dont think there should be Gay Marriages. Not unless I can marry my dog anyway, and receive all the rights and fair treatment that a traditional heterosexual couple does with tradtional benefits like welfare for the puppies we adopt. That's right, just keep redrawing that line and pretty soon we'll be so confused your evolution will retire the portrait we call the human race.

Comment #2 (Posted by Paul Benrail) Well Robert, I must disagree with you. Please consider the following: 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. 10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer life spans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Comment #3 (Posted by Alex) The state should not be involved in marriage. All "marriages" should be handled via private contractual agreements.

Comment #4 (Posted by Victor) This is getting downright stupid. I agree with Mr. Robert. Where do we draw the line? Also, I think Mr. Peterson has some valid points with his evolution thesis but I cant tell what side of the Gay wall he falls on. Here is the bottom line peple - we are a social species. Marriage is a social and cultural institution that we and every culture in the world recognizes in some fashion. However, when do we go too far when we define it as a union between man and woman, man and dog, man and cat, man and monkey, or how about a sheep or pig (syphilis). Pretty soon the Animal Rights Activists will get involved. So if you marry a cow and I eat a nice juicy steak, does that make me a cannibal?

Comment #5 (Posted by Alex) The analogy is flawed as animals cannot consent to legal contracts.

Comment #6 (Posted by John) Ok seriously, this constant reference to people marrying animals, is beyond moronic, marriage is a consent-based tradition. Notice the "I do" portion of vows. An animal cannot consent to marriage. I can understand people being opposed to homosexuality because it conflicts with their beliefs. and that's fine. However, two people of the same sex marrying should NOT be compared to a marriage of man and animal. THESE ARE STILL HUMAN BEINGS! Where in the hell has your sense of humanity gone?? I myself am straight, and I'll be honest, i don't understand how one man can be attracted to another. It simply isn't part of my psychological make-up. THAT said, I still don't feel that my lack of understanding for that attraction, or anyone else's lack thereof, should somehow form legislation on the matter. It is not my right in anyway to control the lives of people with alternative lifestyle, nor is it anyone else's. Gay marriage is still consent-based, there is no one forcing anyone else to do anything here.

Comment #7 (Posted by Roberto) I agree with Alex up to a certain point. Except that the institution by proxy determines under our currently law a certain amount of decision making authority of another individuals life and finances in dire situations as well as inheritance and succession. For this reason rather than any other question of morals or ethics I think their should be more hesitancy to legalize same sex marriages. It would be logistics nightmare to reevaluate and create new systems of law with regard to regulating this, we have enough problems in the current incarnation with keeping fraud, and abuses or manipulations of laws where this is concerned under control. Private agreements would be a nightmare as well. The incident with the cult in Texas is a prime example. Those people claimed that in the eyes of "their God" they were married, but yet had no qualms about fleecing the government by collecting welfare as "unwed mothers". So it was okay for them to ignore the law of the land in favor of their personal religious beliefs, yet they have no problem collecting assistance to live that life style from the same government they despise and hold in contempt. I have a problem with this as the rest of you should because "our tax dollars" went into that at some point. For that reason more than any other this issue should be analyzed firmly for what it really comes down to. "The bottom line." People should to what makes them happy as long as its not on "my dime" or yours for that fact of the matter. That's just my two cents though. If your going to do this, make sure that the labor unions sit in on the meetings and have a say, square things with the insurance agencies. The church will do what it wants anyway so make sure all the other ducks are in a row.

Comment #8 (Posted by Victor) So, let's analyze your analysis a little deeper so we can gain a better understanding of "moronic". If consent is the foundation of your arguement then you must agree to this, otherwise your conclusion does not follow from your premise and your logic is flawed. Answer the following questions without dodging. 1. Should retarded people with IQs less than chimps, apes and dolphins (that have demonstrated the ability to communicate, do math, and reason) be allowed to marry? (Yes or No). To have retared children that your taxes will need to support? (Yes or No) 2. How do you define consent? I think you mean that a sentient lifeform with self-awareness is able to comprehend a contract which is defined as an agreement between two sentient beings where they give and take something from one another and agree that it is fair - an exchange. If this is your definition, then isn't it true that some people are more sentient than others about contracts so consent is not an absolute but relative based on "how smart" someone is about what they are consenting to? If this is your definition genius, then chimps & dolphins (IQ 80-120), and even dogs and pigs that are as smart as a 5 year old human being are sentient and able to consent to an exchange. You tell your dog to sit. You give your dog a treat. Your dog has consented to sit for a treat. And what about working animals (slavery) that are sentient? Are you telling me that you think I dont have a right to love and cherish my dog or chimp and that they are not self-aware? Who do you think you are? Now, apply your flawed and not-so-well-thought-out-logic. Where do we draw the line my friend? Have you seen Planet of the Apes? Interesting thesis. What happens when we discover other sentient life off world?

Comment #9 (Posted by Alex) "Allow them marry?" The real question is should the state infringe upon individuals' right to liberty by restricting the ability to enter into contractual agreements. Plus the entirety of #2 is a red herring.