The only real issue people can have is that it will cost them more insurance money. But my counter argument to that is that these couples will adopt and later on it will do more good than harm, causing insurance to go back down.
1. Anyone who says insurance or taxes is why he or she is against gay marriage is lying.
2. An individual's health insurance costs will not go up because more people might get health insurance after the gay marriage rulings.
3. It's true that the recent marriage cases could cause tax revenue to go down marginally due to gay couples no longer having to pay as much (albeit there are other factors that might balance that out or even raise revenue). Regardless, anyone who would be against gay marriage for this reason should then be against most other types of marriage in a selfish attempt to lower his or her tax obligations as much as possible. Should we ban interracial marriages again in an effort to increase revenue and reduce the deficit?
If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.
"Separate but equal" is never equal.
Equality issues aside, certain rights and benefits require it to be marriage. For example, there are employee unions that specifically require marriage for partner benefits.
Logistic issues like the one above aside, not a single compelling reason has been provided to put gay unions on one side with limited rights/benefits and heterosexual relationships on the other.
Interracial marriage dates back as far as the Bible. That's not an issue. Stay on topic.
Before the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that legalized interracial marriage throughout the United States, the state of interracial marriage was very similar to the state of gay marriage today, being legal in some states and illegal in others (particularly the South). The Bible was also used back then in offense against interracial marriage. It's quite on topic to bring it up.
You seem a little confused. If a hospital has a stupid rule, it's not the government's job to change a definition to circumvent it. It's a problem with the hospital's bill. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the hospital.
Well, first of all, the topic of gay marriage deals directly with law and policy, which is the government's purview. Second, it is the government's job to step in when people's rights are being violated. The Civil Rights Act, for example, dealt in part with the treatment of people by race, even with regard to private institutions. Title II, for example, "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce."
You're right. Man/Man is not the same as Man/Woman. That doesn't mean one is less than the other or that they shouldn't be treated equally under the law.
If you imply that it is a bad thing that marriage has strayed from its traditional roots, then why would you rally to further deviate it? Marriage has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?
I didn't say it was a bad thing that marriage has become more inclusive and equal over the years. I explicitly stated that it's a bad thing that gay couples suffer the detrimental psychological effects of being told they're second-class citizens in states that do not allow same-sex marriage.
This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertions that the majority won't be affected.
Actually, we only make things illegal or deny people specific rights when ample reason has been provided to do so, not the other way around. You could take away knowledge of all the positive things about gay marriage (e.g. equality, stability for couples and families (financial and otherwise), the positive psychological effects, etc), and you've still given no reason to make gay marriage illegal. Clinging to the sound bite "marriage is one man and one woman," ignoring that's not even the case in the Bible or would even matter if it were, does nothing to make any argument against gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in my state of Missouri until the 1967 Supreme Court decision. Should interracial couples in Missouri have just been all, "Well, marriage is defined as one man of the same race and one woman of the same race here. I guess that's that"?