The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

What's wrong with a standard of "any two unmarried, consenting adults?" You've given us no indication why the current standard is better than this proposed one; you've simply made an argument that the current standard is better than no standard at all.Well, no shit, genius. What? Of course they discriminate. They discriminate in that they don't hand out the licenses to homosexual couples.The civil government defines civil marriage. Your religion can define marriage however it likes; the only definition of any relevance is the governments, and currently it defines marriage in an unconstitutional manner.

And thus nothing. Marriage will still be sancitifed. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the sole source of what is sanctified and what is not. And so what? Why does the Judeo-Christian standard have to apply to everybody? Especially those who aren't Judeo-Christians? Here's the standard: "A sanctified social binding between two consenting, unmarried, loving adults."Again, we're not proposing that standards be abandoned. Simply changed to recognize that homosexual couples are heading families, just like hetero ones. The family is still sacred. We're just getting the government caught up with that. The "homosexual logic" only applies to unmarried couples. How can it be expanded any further than that? Once you have man+man, woman+woman, and woman+man, what other combinations of two unmarried adults are there? None, of course. Certainly they have. They're for the privledges of marriage offered to all couples comprised of unmarried, consenting adults. But I guess you just weren't paying attention? Sorry, I forget that not everyone participates in the level of discourse that me and my friends use. Wasn't trying to insult you, just drive home the point. Well, I disagree. The government defines civil marriage, because the government defines all government-recognized civil institutions, just like the government defines "corporation", "non-profit charity", etc.Churches are free to define religious marriage however they like, I don't give a damn. The government is the only group here that matters. Well, traditionally that's been the values of love, sacrifice, forbearance, sharing, and parenthood. Gay couples have all those values, so why shouldn't they enjoy marriage?There's no legal argument against gay marriage; there's no moral argument against it; there's no logical argument against it. Despite the best efforts of the conservatives, we're going to have it, and why shouldn't we? It's not like people are going to make other people enter into gay marriages if they don't want to.