Some are just bigots and, just to clarify, I lay the larger portion of blame for incivility in this debate with these people. Compared to marriage, these ideas are very new, so it seemed reasonable to ask whether they could neatly be applied to an institution that is discriminatory by its very nature. What I dispute is that a plebiscite was somehow inappropriate to decide the question. They are a bit funny, but apply the principles to something you don't agree with and you've got big problems. If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural?
A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses which were not verified.
31 arguments against gay marriage (and why they’re all wrong)
The institution of marriage is established to support the family in its raising of children, who are the future of the community. Premise 1' does not save the argument. Some traditions are worth holding onto. Traditionally it has been the love between a man and a woman, which is not just romantic love, but a deeper love which includes the love of friendship and one which foresees the possibility of that love bearing fruit. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people.
The debate over same-sex marriage is fundamentally a debate about whether gay and lesbian unions are worthy of honour and recognition that, in our society, state-sanctioned marriage confers. It speaks a politics of values-neutrality, where everything is simply reduced to preferences and all preferences are legitimate, no matter how base. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. Perhaps the single biggest problem with the marriage equality formulation is that it delegitimises opposition. Serious Christians cannot ignore the Bible. What does marriage honour?