The problem, iano, is that your position is begging the question. Where is the impending fire?
No more so than asserting gay marriage as moral (or perhaps civil rights) progress is begging the question. The question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing. I say it leads down a slope to moral depravity. You think it leads upwards towards something.
BZZT! You ar poseting unsubstantiated fear as a basis for discriminating a large group of people. 3% of the population to be precice.
We have already established that your fears are contrary to objective data gathered about the nature of homosexuality, as well as the practical concerns about gays in family/child rearing sittuations. To put it simply, your position has no foundation.
I could simply say it's ok to discriminate against blacks because "You know how THEY are." or "It will lead to mass chaos!". See the similarity? Both of those statements are based on unsubstantiated fear, bigotry, and prejudice.
In this case, it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of reality versus imagination.
It is a subjective thing and we are both entitled to our view on what we consider a) moral depravity to be and b) whether gay marriage leads to that.
It is not subjective. You have made a posative assertion that gay marriage will lead to certain effects. Yet, all emperical data shows that you are compleatly wrong about your beliefs.
These things aren't decisions about what flavor of chocolate you like better, this has to do with the disenfranchisment of about 3% of the US population. Your position is invalidated by data iano.
You are wrong.
You might agree with some of your fellow proponants of gay marriage that there is no more reason to legislate against this than there is to legislate against mothers marrying sons or people having numerous wives and husbands. If you do not see that as a 'bad' thing then I cannot help that - my subjective standard as to 'moral fibre of society' differs from yours
Straw man, and red herring. No one is proposing people marrying their sons. You do know that similar arguments where made when the laws forbiding interacial marriage were torn down?
People called the blacks 'beasts' and suggested that allowing interacial marrige would lead to people marrying livestock. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
Are people marrying dogs in Canada where gay marriage has been legal for several years now?
Your fears are so far divorced from reality it's laughable.
Its not a question of there never having existed opportunties for moral destruction. At times these opportunities are taken and times not. At times societies utterly destroy themselves (think Roman or 3rd Reich Germany) in their depravity. And they recover and start the cycle all over again.
Incorrect. Neither Rome, nore Nazi Germany were brought down as a direct result of moral depravity. Morals do not dictate the rise or decline of a cultural/national/military power structure. Morals however do affect the quality of life for the people within those structures.
As a tangible example, both modern europe, and the USA have the distinction of being built on the backs of slaves. Not to mention the horrible indian genocide wich is essentially why we even have this great land of ours, or indeed, europe has it's vast reserves of colonial wealth.
The question has nothing to do with the destruction of society. The question is simply:
"Is there a tangible, objective reason, we should discriminate against 3% of the human population?"
And the answer, as evidenced by the lack of objective support for your position, is resoundingly no.