Well, how about answering my actual point then? How is the extension of logic I present inconsistent with the logic put forth by gay rights activists?
From everything I've read to date, the arguments come down to biological propensity toward sex attractions and official spousal recognition within society. This means the financial properties of modern day marriage in terms of taxes, purchases like health insurance, and ability to visit a hospitalized spouse, as well as state recognition of the couple as a family who may adopt orphaned children. Regardless of this, the issue of whether to perform ceremonies could be left up to individual churches. If nothing was tied to marriage at a societal level, it would not be problematic to leave this up to individual churches. Right now the religious argument is to deny churches the ability to interpret their own practices.
I realize your examples are meant to be generalized, but I can't think of a good case, so I'll respond to them directly. There's no way for me to offer something really deductive over a few minutes of typing. Regarding some of the hypothetical situations, the union of three men would be one of polygamy. You chose to assign the situation of three men as an extension of gay marriage, but the only element that can be isolated there is polygamy. You haven't shown how polygamy is an extension of same sex marriage, but the primary issue I have with polygamy is the issue of subjugation. It's an entirely different topic in itself. I could see some parallels in terms of spousal visitation rights and things of that nature, but you haven't shown how this is a pandora's box. Interestingly mormonism initially advocated polygamy, so at the time any limitation would have technically been an affront to their religious freedoms. I keep running into the issue of religious favoritism rather than religious rights, which is problematic for me.
The other one you presented was an argument involving a tree, but I'll use a
shrubbery. I would argue that even if this was made legal, which it wouldn't be because the shrubbery isn't legally recognized as a person, it wouldn't change anything. If it's an issue of religion, that comes down to the willingness of your church to perform such a ceremony. If the issue is one of issuance of a marriage license, can you show what would change there? I don't see anything in the collection of marriage rights that would have any impact. It wouldn't have a social security number, so it wouldn't be included on joint tax returns. Regarding spousal visitation rights, that might be amusing. Given that it isn't recognized as a legal person, I'm not sure inheritance would work.
I'm having trouble finding societal harm outside the issue of absurdity with this one, where the former is merely implicating polygamy and same sex marriage as the same issue. Outside of subjugation, the other issue that comes to mind with polygamy is one of fraudulence, just like you occasionally have with naturalization through marriage.
That's just it, the biological basis for marriage is inherent in creation. How is that scientifically unsound? If you remove the connotations surrounding the word "marriage" you are left with a unique relationship. It is unique because it is the only union capable of procreation. That's not morals, that's just biology.
I was questioning its roots and considering alluding to the fact that homosexual relationships have been found among primates other than humans. The concept of modern marriage is in some ways still a transfer of wealth, and it isn't perfect in any way. It's merely what we have as a social construct. It hasn't ever been static, and I suggested that scientific evidence of biological propensity (of homosexuality) should be enough to consider their case on its own merits. It's very easy to maintain the rights of religious individuals by simply allowing their churches to make the decision on whether or not to perform certain ceremonies. It becomes problematic when you try to use the values of a specific religion to limit the rest of society. Otherwise you are merely trampling other religions which do not expressly forbid it.
My friend, the Christian in this case believes that gay marriage is offensive to God and a grave sin. That is their belief. It is not the government's job to decide what a Christian does or does not believe. By arranging flowers for the wedding, yes, many Christians would believe that would be participating in what they consider evil. Would you force a Muslim to eat meat on their holy days? Of course not. For the same reason a Christian shouldn't be forced to act against their beliefs.
Okay I am editing in these responses, and yeah if it's too much to respond to every point I've made, I'll understand. It is a lot of typing, and I do like arguing. This is kind of why I would prefer the churches were able to make their own decisions on whether to perform services. I do not see why anyone would want to belong to a church that doesn't wish to marry them.
I agree that the unjust discrimination of persons is wrong. However, discrimination based on a person's behavior is quite a different thing. We discriminate against behavior all the time, and for good reason.
This is typically the case where something has a demonstrably problematic effect on society. If someone can stab or shoot you without repercussion or open a warehouse that stores explosives next door, you may have provable harm. This is not something that merely makes you uncomfortable. It creates an increased potential for provable harm.
